Where is the US economy headed?

@georgeob1,

Really george? An F in economics?

Perhaps you need to read my statement again. You would get an F in 6th grade reading. I never said trade resulted in benefit only happening in a single direction. I only pointed out that trade doesn't benefit each individual equally. In fact if you had bothered to copy the rest of my post it might have been apparent to you.

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie, for some time I have not been amazed at all about the degree of ignorance displayed on this forum by the leftist liberals here. I don't perceive them as actually ignorant any longer. I perceive it to be their devotion to that which excuses their failures or mistakes in life, and/or excuses their hunger for acceptance by those like themselves.

I concluded some time ago that their behavior is not so much due to ignorance as it is to their psychology that is almost identical to that of most of the German people under Hitler. They behave like people drenched in repeated lies. They seem compelled to go along with what they perceive to be the prevailing wisdom of their leadership or fellow go-alongers rather than think for themselves and risk abuse by their leadership or their fellow go-alongers.

My posts are designed to help me--no one else--determine for sure why they conform to and repeat what they perceive to be prevailing wisdom or consensus. Their hateful vilification of those with whom they disagree is perceived by me to be a measure of their fear of discovering they have been victimized by their surrender of themselves to rotten opinions.

While some can and even have broken free of their mental corral, it is very difficult for more and more of them to do so as they grow older.

Because I feel great sorrow for them in their self imprisonment, I hope I can find a way to help more of them breakaway from it. Perhaps the best way is to avoid any personal vilification of any of them while debating them.

Probably, none of them reading what I have written here will rationally debate what I wrote. Either they will ignore it, or they will instead villify me for writing it. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican wrote:

Quote:

...their behavior is not so much due to ignorance as it is to their psychology that is almost identical to that of most of the German people under Hitler.

You neither understand current US political psychology or the history of Germany under Hitler. Two strikes, and you're out!

You've struck out so often in the past, why do you continue coming up to bat to show your ignorance? I guess dummies never learn. Most sane people would have given up a long time ago.

0 Replies

@parados,

For years, I have thought the dismantling of the rail system was a terrible mistake. I still do.

I lived for a long time in a suburb of Boston and was cheered to know that people walked downtown in the evening for ice cream or walked to the commuter rail station. I was gladdened to see families bike to the library, to pick up videos and small amounts of groceries.

I work in a fairly large city. It is the same city that my daughter and her husband live in. Its urban planning is on the Robert Moses model and not on the Jane Jacobs model. People are trapped not in neighborhoods which can be identified by the schools, churches and stores, but by neighborhoods made separate by the highways.

ican is wrong to say that highways benefit people.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

The author of this sentence

Quote:

I perceive it to be their devotion to that which excuses their failures or mistakes in life, and/or excuses their hunger for acceptance by those like themselves.

thinks "leftist liberals" are ignorant!

He then continued to dig his own grave with this:

Quote:

I concluded some time ago that their behavior is not so much due to ignorance as it is to their psychology that is almost identical to that of most of the German people under Hitler. They behave like people drenched in repeated lies. They seem compelled to go along with what they perceive to be the prevailing wisdom of their leadership or fellow go-alongers rather than think for themselves and risk abuse by their leadership or their fellow go-alongers.

This is a man who attempted to quote the titanically incompetent ann coulter several times! This is from the man who espouses the philosophy and rhetoric of rush limbaugh, who earns more than all of Congress put together, thanks to simpletons like himself! Talk about walking the party line!

A final note: we ignore you for two reasons: it is impossible to debate with someone who does not hold the same definitions, and, you are not sufficiently well-versed in what you are attempting to say to carry on a two way conversation.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

ican, are you as amazed as I am about the degree of ignorance on this forum?

I think many of the posts you have displayed when it comes to the rich vs. poor argument, and to the way government supports them, do betray ignorance, Okie.

It is incontrevertable that a strong government is what ALLOWS you to become rich. Without a solid force of laws backing up what you do, you could not be a rich man. Sure, you might be able to have some physical possessions, but you couldn't own any property that you couldn't hold by force; because with no laws I'd just come take it. You couldn't have a business with multiple branches, because with no laws, the people running each individual one could just claim it for themselves.

Without regulations, you could be killed by someone who hits your car on the dirt road (no strong governments means no highways) or by glass or chemicals in your food. In fact, it's very difficult to see how it is POSSIBLE to even be 'rich' without a country and a government that supports your ability to do so.

You can be poor anywhere.
You can only be Rich in a country which protects your rights to do so.

Therefore it's entirely appropriate to say that the rich man benefits more from government than the poor man. It protects not only his life but his property, at a tremendous remove and with force. The Law is like a giant dude who is out there looking out for the rich man's interests, all the time. It behooves those with greater wealth to pay more to support the protection of that wealth.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You can be poor anywhere.
You can only be Rich in a country which protects your rights to do so.

Therefore it's entirely appropriate to say that the rich man benefits more from government than the poor man. It protects not only his life but his property, at a tremendous remove and with force. The Law is like a giant dude who is out there looking out for the rich man's interests, all the time. It behooves those with greater wealth to pay more to support the protection of that wealth.

Cycloptichorn

There is some truth in what you write, but mostly this consists of gross oversimplifications of a much more complex issue. History provides many examples of great concentrations of stable wealth arising in relatively lawless times. Powerful governments, exercising control "at a tremendous remove and with force" (a nice phrase) have also destroyed huge property owning classes and the wealth they created, bringing drab poverty and the loss of liberty to everyone. The Soviet Union was the prime example in modern history.

I believe the real lesson here is that too much government destroys both wealth and freedom.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

History provides many examples of great concentrations of stable wealth arising in relatively lawless times.

Only that which can be held by force of arms. That bears little relation to what we think of as 'wealth.' Anyone can have a pile of gold in their house and pay guards to protect it at all times; but without force of law to back it up, you are under constant threat of losing your wealth and there is little way to protect any investment you aren't directly in front of. What you describe is much more akin to a despot or bandit king than it is what we have today.

Quote:

I believe the real lesson here is that too much government destroys both wealth and freedom.

On the contrary; we weren't discussing that at all. That isn't the 'real lesson' here. That is the conversation you'd RATHER be having, but it isn't the one that we are having. If you want to start a separate thread or conversation on the ills of 'too much government,' go right ahead. But let's try and stay on topic here.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

ican, are you as amazed as I am about the degree of ignorance on this forum?

I think many of the posts you have displayed when it comes to the rich vs. poor argument, and to the way government supports them, do betray ignorance, Okie.

I would like you to point out one single post that proves ignorance, cyclops. I will go on to dispute your following points with facts.

Quote:

It is incontrevertable that a strong government is what ALLOWS you to become rich.

No, that is not exactly correct. It is correct inasmuch as we have a good government that is strong with respect to protecting my God given rights, that is what allows me to work and earn a living. However, we do not want or need a strong central government that does central planning for us. What allows us our rights is to get out of our way, okay. Second point, I am not what I would call rich or wealthy, no way. I am comfortable and I enjoy a good roof over my head, with enough to eat, and I can eat out once in a while. I don't need to give you this information, but I am not even close to a millionaire status, and most of my worth is in the value of my home, which is paid for by the way. I do not care if other people are more wealthy than I, it makes no difference, and I am not envious of them.

Quote:

Without a solid force of laws backing up what you do, you could not be a rich man. Sure, you might be able to have some physical possessions, but you couldn't own any property that you couldn't hold by force; because with no laws I'd just come take it. You couldn't have a business with multiple branches, because with no laws, the people running each individual one could just claim it for themselves.

Again, I am not rich in this world's goods, so get that out of your head, cyclops. I do agree with you that we need a government that can and does protect our rights, but that does not translate automatically into a big overbearing government given to central planning and taking care of everyone. There is a huge difference, and the difference is also huge in terms of the amount of money needed to support the government we need, vs the government that we don't need.

Quote:

Without regulations, you could be killed by someone who hits your car on the dirt road (no strong governments means no highways) or by glass or chemicals in your food. In fact, it's very difficult to see how it is POSSIBLE to even be 'rich' without a country and a government that supports your ability to do so.

You can be poor anywhere.
You can only be Rich in a country which protects your rights to do so.

Therefore it's entirely appropriate to say that the rich man benefits more from government than the poor man. It protects not only his life but his property, at a tremendous remove and with force. The Law is like a giant dude who is out there looking out for the rich man's interests, all the time. It behooves those with greater wealth to pay more to support the protection of that wealth.

Cycloptichorn

I will go back to the obvious point that I have pointed out numerous times already, that the life and rights of a poor man are worth just as much as that of a rich man. That is what sets our country apart from many other countries, and that is why hundreds of millions of people have come to this country to enjoy the opportunities and freedoms that we all have here. This country is not exclusively for the rich, and for you to claim that the government needs to be strong and that it spends most of its money for the benefit of the rich, that frankly is or should be an insult to every American. I know it is to me, it is insulting, cyclops. In regard to property, sure the rich might have more property, but the property of the poor may be just as important to the poor as the property of the rich. I know it is to me. Ted Turner can own all the ranches that he does, fine, but I do not feel that the laws of this country are spending any more money on his property rights as they are on mine, which includes about an acre.

Cyclops, I am growing tired of your demagoguery of the rich. You should be thanking some of them. Look at all the jobs that Gates has provided because he became rich and built his business into what it is. How many jobs does the local bum under the bridge provide? We do not, nor should we worship the rich, but surely it grows tiresome to hear your demagoguery and claims that they are not paying their fair share, when it is entirely obvious that they are. In fact, if anyone is dropping the ball in this country, it is the non and low achievers that drop out of school, that may be on drugs, and that do not prepare themselves to be useful to society, to perform needed jobs, especially the ones that require more training.

It is adding insult to injury to then blame the achievers for all of this country's problems. Such is not surprising however, because all leftist movements seek to organize the "have nots" to try to take from the "haves" by preaching the mantra of social injustice and unfairness. That is why some of us, including me, were so animated to warn the country about the dangers of the leftist influences in Obama's life, such as the Jeremiah Wrights and others. Such thinking is truly dangerous, cyclops, and it seems that many on this board, including you, have fallen prey to that type of thinking. It is worrisome to say the least, and I hope the grassroots of America can turn the tide back to sanity again. I think the Tea Party movement was part of that grassroots that is trying to return us to a responsible country again, back to our roots.

2 Replies

@okie,

If the rich are paying for the rights of the poor, what's your point?

Do you understand what our Constitution says?

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

ican is wrong to say that highways benefit people.

Has there been any more of an amazing statement made by pom? You are amazing, pom, and you at least provide a window into the liberal mind.

0 Replies

@okie,

You basically dropped all the points that I and Squinney have made. The rich man has MORE to protect than just his life; he has a giant amount of property and privilege as well.

When I say 'you' in this discussion, I wasn't trying to imply that you personally were rich, sorry if that was confusing.

Quote:

In regard to property, sure the rich might have more property, but the property of the poor may be just as important to the poor as the property of the rich. I know it is to me. Ted Turner can own all the ranches that he does, fine, but I do not feel that the laws of this country are spending any more money on his property rights as they are on mine, which includes about an acre.

You may not FEEL that way, but you're simply wrong. The more assets one owns, the greater amount of time and effort the Law spends protecting those various assets. The greater amount of assets you own, the more benefit you receive from shared resources which support those assets. This isn't an opinion of mine but a simple fact of life.

Quote:

Cyclops, I am growing tired of your demagoguery of the rich. You should be thanking some of them. Look at all the jobs that Gates has provided because he became rich and built his business into what it is.

If it's such demagoguery, why does Gates agree with me? Why do many rich people such as Buffett or Gates continually insist that they should be taxed at a higher rate?

Here's a question for you: in the last 65 years, at which point have the rich paid the LEAST in taxes? Can you even identify this?

The rest of your ranting about 'achievers' isn't worth responding to.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

amen

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Here's a question for you: in the last 65 years, at which point have the rich paid the LEAST in taxes? Can you even identify this?

Lets make sure of the definition before that question gets answered.

Do you mean "least" as a percentage of their income, or an actual dollar amount?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Here's a question for you: in the last 65 years, at which point have the rich paid the LEAST in taxes? Can you even identify this?

Lets make sure of the definition before that question gets answered.

Do you mean "least" as a percentage of their income, or an actual dollar amount?

Uh, percentage of their income. That's the only metric which really matters; under a system of progressive taxation in which the Rich pay higher rates than the poor, every time the dollar amount they pay grows, it's a sign of increased wealth on their part, not increased burden upon them....

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You basically dropped all the points that I and Squinney have made. The rich man has MORE to protect than just his life; he has a giant amount of property and privilege as well.

What are you talking about when you now use the term "privilege?" What privileges do the rich have that the poor do not have or could have?

Quote:

When I say 'you' in this discussion, I wasn't trying to imply that you personally were rich, sorry if that was confusing.

Understood, but it did sound like you were addressing me.

Quote:

Quote:
In regard to property, sure the rich might have more property, but the property of the poor may be just as important to the poor as the property of the rich. I know it is to me. Ted Turner can own all the ranches that he does, fine, but I do not feel that the laws of this country are spending any more money on his property rights as they are on mine, which includes about an acre.

You may not FEEL that way, but you're simply wrong. The more assets one owns, the greater amount of time and effort the Law spends protecting those various assets. The greater amount of assets you own, the more benefit you receive from shared resources which support those assets. This isn't an opinion of mine but a simple fact of life.

I challenge your belief here. More assets do not necessarily at all indicate that the government spends more time protecting those assets. Not at all. In fact, I think the exact opposite may be true. For example, my wife and I have had the experience of driving across vast stretches of the heartland of America, including Kansas, Oklahoma, northwest New Mexico, and southeast Colorado, not just once but numerous times. Seldom do we ever see any law enforcement, and I doubt seriously that law enforcement spends much money to protect some of those vast thousands of acres. In contrasts, we have spent time in congested neighborhoods of cities, and we have experienced the constant droning of sirens and emergency vehicles responding to various problems. I have a close relative in law enforcement, and he could tell you the repeated calls for domestic violence and other problems, often stemming from alcohol or drug abuse, not always but more often in low income areas of town or towns. In fact it has become known that meth cookers and other drug dealers have found small towns to their liking, due to low rent and other factors. I know that was the trend for a while, I don't know what it is right now.

Conclusion cyclops, I don't think you have any proof at all for your claims, at least not with property. In regard to bank insurance, such as FDIC, the government insures and examines banks that hold both the rich's and the poor's money, but sound banks benefit the poor even when they don't have money in them, by providing financial backing to their employers and more.

Mutual funds and stocks have been mentioned here as something the poor do not have, I think by pom. Again, a fallacious argument because the poor may include teachers, law enforcement, and other workers for the government that own mutual funds and retirement. My son in law is fairly poor, certainly not rich, but he even contributes to a retirement fund that the contractor provides, that he works for. I could cite many other examples, cyclops, where financial assets are owned by the poor.

Quote:

Quote:
Cyclops, I am growing tired of your demagoguery of the rich. You should be thanking some of them. Look at all the jobs that Gates has provided because he became rich and built his business into what it is.

If it's such demagoguery, why does Gates agree with me? Why do many rich people such as Buffett or Gates continually insist that they should be taxed at a higher rate?

Here's a question for you: in the last 65 years, at which point have the rich paid the LEAST in taxes? Can you even identify this?

The rest of your ranting about 'achievers' isn't worth responding to.
Cycloptichorn

As I have already stated, I am even willing to look at higher marginal tax rates, but don't you think blaming the rich has gotten way out of hand? I don't know the answer to your question without looking it up, probably during the past 10 years, but I would ask you this, has the portion of taxes paid ever been higher by the rich than it is now, and has the portion of taxes paid by the bottome half of the population ever been lower than during the Bush years? Just who is not paying their fair share? I think I am entirely correct to point out that blaming the rich has been taken way too far.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Here's a question for you: in the last 65 years, at which point have the rich paid the LEAST in taxes? Can you even identify this?
Lets make sure of the definition before that question gets answered.
Do you mean "least" as a percentage of their income, or an actual dollar amount?
Uh, percentage of their income. That's the only metric which really matters; under a system of progressive taxation in which the Rich pay higher rates than the poor, every time the dollar amount they pay grows, it's a sign of increased wealth on their part, not increased burden upon them....
Cycloptichorn

Its the only metric that supports your agenda, but it is not at all the only metric that matters, cyclops.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Are ytou including federal, state, and local taxes, or just federal?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Federal, though I highly doubt that matters one whit. The answer is still the same.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Inflation is here... thank you Obama.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know