"Freedom" thread or something

JJLehto wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: Got 10 out of 10. Pretty easy honestly. First comment I see "The secret is to attribute the ones that sound like an educated monster to Hitler, and the dumber-sounding ones to Santorum." How terrible is it that's true?

As one of my friends said about it, "Any quote that uses words with more than 3 syllables is probably Hitler's".

And yeah Ric, I'd honestly like to hear you flesh out your opinions sometime. Trollface only gets you so far in life.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I agree that it doesn't happen in practice, but it still exists in the idealistic manifestation of the philosophy. Plus, the anarchocommunist sect is pretty orthodox in Marxist teachings.

I didn't get the memo.

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I agree that it doesn't happen in practice, but it still exists in the idealistic manifestation of the philosophy. Plus, the anarchocommunist sect is pretty orthodox in Marxist teachings. I didn't get the memo.

You're no marxist Slarti but a democrat, which basically is a republican who likes unions and social security. Don't taint extreme ideologies with your mundane beliefs .

I'm mostly liberal or progressive if you will and make no bones about it.  Politically there is some libertarian overlap.  Much less so when it comes to republican and conservative.  Probably the closest I come is democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders.  I don't have a problem with capitalism as long as it is tempered with socialism.  This may seem like a bit of a contradiction...

Basically if you want a system where capital reigns supreme you have to take care of those who don't have capital to begin with.  If everyone starts out at the beginning with x amount of capital, then it really is up to you whether you succeed or fail based on your own initiative.  The reality is many don't and are set back from the beginning.  I believe government should attempt to level the playing field, but you can't guarantee outcomes.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 20 2012 at 10:04

Why leave such an important role to government? I can agree with allocating capital to those less fortunate, but I just fail to see how large impersonal bodies restrained by law and bureaucracy operating on force and class warfare can accomplish this goal and foster a society that expounds it. 

horsewithteeth11 wrote: JJLehto wrote: horsewithteeth11 wrote: Got 10 out of 10. Pretty easy honestly. First comment I see "The secret is to attribute the ones that sound like an educated monster to Hitler, and the dumber-sounding ones to Santorum." How terrible is it that's true? As one of my friends said about it, "Any quote that uses words with more than 3 syllables is probably Hitler's". And yeah Ric, I'd honestly like to hear you flesh out your opinions sometime. Trollface only gets you so far in life.

I only had to start deleting his comments on my FB to get him to stop trolling, and I hate doing that

But yeah, obviously we get a one sided view in here. Besides wanting to know his beliefs I'd like to hear some real talk why we should keep the Fed and fiat money. More I read and think about real life it makes less sense by the day.

JJLehto wrote: Why I changed Slart is I realized 1) our government is f**ked. 2) there is no way to "help the middle classes" while sustaining the programs I wanted. 3) we DO need to reduce our deficits here and abroad. It hit me the only way to fix the government is to reduce it. If that happened we could lower taxes across the board, including property and sales taxes which are regressive. It'd also force us to end our foreign policy. Oh and ending the fed/returning to gold standard will ease inflation, also a tax that hurts middle class and working people most. So yeah, call me a limited/efficient liberal now.

Well, the problem here is people wanting to reduce government without regard to the consequences.  It all sounds nice to just cut it.  What you are cutting matters.  All of these slash and burn cutting government types don't give a crap about the consequences of doing that or they pretend that it doesn't matter or that we'll have a utopia.  So you want to cut the deficit?  The wealthy should kick in first.  This f**king nonsense that they are the job creators burns my shorts because if they really were, we'd be fantastically well off as a country with all the tax cuts they have been given.

Slartibartfast wrote: JJLehto wrote: Why I changed Slart is I realized 1) our government is f**ked. 2) there is no way to "help the middle classes" while sustaining the programs I wanted. 3) we DO need to reduce our deficits here and abroad. It hit me the only way to fix the government is to reduce it. If that happened we could lower taxes across the board, including property and sales taxes which are regressive. It'd also force us to end our foreign policy. Oh and ending the fed/returning to gold standard will ease inflation, also a tax that hurts middle class and working people most. So yeah, call me a limited/efficient liberal now. Well, the problem here is people wanting to reduce government without regard to the consequences.  It all sounds nice to just cut it.  What you are cutting matters.  All of these slash and burn cutting government types don't give a crap about the consequences of doing that or they pretend that it doesn't matter or that we'll have a utopia.  So you want to cut the deficit?  The wealthy should kick in first.  This f**king nonsense that they are the job creators burns my shorts because if they really were, we'd be fantastically well off as a country with all the tax cuts they have been given.

Like I said...I'm still a liberal. I support a progressive income tax because I don't care what anyone else says, that is fairest way. Here's the thing, as you know I was all about the wealthy paying their fair share...but they already don't. Romney got flak for paying like 17% in income tax? Must be the limit...because I believe Warren Buffet (with his tens of billions) paid around 17% while his employees paid 33%, this is by his own admittance.
So I realized jacking it up is honestly pointless, and those lower earners in the top bracket (like $400,000 a year) will get hammered. Not quite fair since millionaires and the real big whales are the target.

I also support some government programs still, but obviously you must know as it is now is messy and not really sustainable. Frankly, I'm a little surprised. I thought you'd know me well enough to know I don't advocate insane rash cuts. As you said, what matters.

My scenario, (maybe I'll write a book on it) tell me what you think because I'm working on this:
1. Drastic cut to the defense budget/change in foreign policy. Few Americans are willing to admit it but not only would it make us safer, but it would lift a huge chunk of government spending.
2. Make rational cuts to wasteful spending.
3. Gotta be willing to open the postal service up to competition, look at cutting some useless departments, privatizing certain things.
4. With what I see as rational cuts in government we could lower taxes but eliminate loopholes. You can't get out of it, but it's lower. How about 25% on the top? 10-20% for the rest. It'd be like 15% cuts for most of America. Big cuts in property and sales tax, because you know those are regressive and hurt middle/working class families.
This could allow us to keep some important government programs.
5. Gotta eliminate (or radically alter) the Fed to stave off inflation, which is also a tax that is regressive.

Or maybe use sometime of negative income tax like Milton Friedman suggested. Everyone gets a certain amount of $ that naturally cuts off at a point, then you become a tax payer. Lower earners would get a net payment from the government and it could lead to a more drastic reduction in welfare, which is good but messy and prone to abuse. Like now, you can live off it if you chose but there's a real incentive to look for work. Look into it man.




Edited by JJLehto - March 20 2012 at 15:48

Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's one way to look at it. The other way is to recognize that just continuing down the path also matters. You're talking about unsustainable programs as if they will perpetuate. What you cut matters just as much as what you kill by not cutting. Yeah I hate it when people say that the wealthy create jobs. However, those with the ability to invest in large scores of capital do tend give rise to economic development.

Actually the programs are sustainable, what isn't is the parasitic relationship we have between those who actually make things and those at the top of the economic ladder who don't.

Speculation doesn't create any real jobs, gas marketing does not...


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 20 2012 at 16:18

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's one way to look at it. The other way is to recognize that just continuing down the path also matters. You're talking about unsustainable programs as if they will perpetuate. What you cut matters just as much as what you kill by not cutting. Yeah I hate it when people say that the wealthy create jobs. However, those with the ability to invest in large scores of capital do tend give rise to economic development. Actually the programs are sustainable, what isn't is the parasitic relationship we have between those who actually make things and those at the top of the economic ladder who don't. Speculation doesn't create any real jobs, gas marketing does not...

Really? Social Security is sustainable? Explain that one to me.

First off, you picked two activities which could theoretically not provide jobs. What is that supposed to say? I could retort with saying something like opening a Sonic or a UHaul storage facility.

Your falling into a Marxist flawed ideology here. Do you want me to explain the benefits of the two activities you mentioned? Do you want to explain the relationship between production and worth to me?