That's no argument to not tax the rich. All it means is that you will have to cut your standard of living across the board.
You have lived far beyond your means for far too long.
The question is who, in equity, will pay. I'd start with your silly military. Which costs a bomb to do nothing of value and just annoy people. Especially in places like Bahrain where it protects the royal despots against unruly citizens wanting to rule themselves.
King George anyone?
Last edited by Awryly; 11-14-2012 at 11:48 PM.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
There is now Republican talk of a "fiscal staircase"
No doubt they expect it will lead to divine salvation.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
Here's you fiscal staircase.
@ What's Going on With the Fiscal Cliff?That's where things get a little tricky. The whole fiscal-cliff metaphor is specifically designed to sound super scary, but it's really kind of misleading. Here are two different ways of looking at it:
- The fiscal-cliff way: On January 1, about $400 billion in tax increases and $200 billion in spending cuts will take effect. That's $600 billion, or 4 percent of GDP, and that would be a huge drag on the economy.
- The fiscal-staircase way: On January 1, total spending cuts and tax increases of about $1.6 billion will take effect. On January 2, another $1.6 billion. On January 3, another $1.6 billion. Etc.
You see? We're not really going to fall off a cliff on January 1. The cumulative effect of all this stuff will be pretty small for the first few weeks. It's only if it drags on forever that we really feel the hit.
It's from MotherJones.com, a liberal rag.
YOu really know American politics, doncha.
Mister D (11-22-2012)
Last edited by Awryly; 11-22-2012 at 11:31 PM.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
Corporate Capitalism is a Failure measured against the axiom: "The greatest possible good, for the greatest number of people." Corporate (ie: Venture) Capitalism is the opposite. It the exponential good for the few, at the expense of low standard of living for the many.
Democratic Socialist Mechanized Distribution. Thats the future that uses the technology to provide mass production, without even the necessity of much of a human labor force. It could provide every individual with a standard of living to start with, from which, then conventional "small" and "free" markets that use capitalist principle could thrive. No monoply or Facist Corporations allowed, however.
Why would you want to measure anything against a Utilitarian axiom? If capitalism is so bad then why is it social democracy's goal to manage it? Social democracy is the worst form of socialism, far worse than communism, fascism, nazism. It's undermining the invisible hand.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.
That's really funny. Scandinavian and Australasian countries, which are social democracies of the best (you would say worst) kind, came out of the GFC in much better shape than the US fascist plutocracy that caused it. As did Germany.
Why did the "invisible hand" selectively wank the US into a paroxysm of self-destruction?
Last edited by Awryly; 11-23-2012 at 08:10 PM.
Come sit down beside me I said to myself
And although it doesn't make sense
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
And together I sat on the fence
Anon. Very anon.