Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Sep 28, 2010.
I think capitalism in general is social darwinist in nature.
This is unclear; is he talking about, while we get to the balanced budget, that Americans will be facing hard times? Aren't we already?
Look, I know I didn't do all that well in the Macro-Economics class, but if the budget is balanced, the government requires less funding; meaning, less taxes required of the citizens. Less taxes = more disposable income. More disposable income = more investment by businesses to create toys, games, and yo-yo's (anyone else remember TG&Y?) for people to spend their disposable income on.
I'm probably way off the mark. Someone educate me, please.
The author of the article is a complete moron.
Only a complete moron would believe that a nation can borrow, tax and spend it's way to prosperity.
Also why did the financial geniuses in charge of our social security funds invest it all in one place - IOU's from the government?
Even an idiot knows that the first rule of investing is to diversify.
And of course these same geniuses are unable to grasp the concept that common stock is not the only investment vehicle.
Private accounts in our hands would have been much better invested than putting it all into IOU's with the government that has no other source of income than to take the money from the taxpayer.
So in the end we will be paid back our money with money that they take from us first.
Worse than robbing Peter to pay Paul - it's robbing Peter to pay Peter and then telling him that he should be grateful that somonone is taking care of him !!
The Eastern Bloc tried it your way. Didn't work so well.
I am not sure you can call economic theories as advanced by either Friedman or Hayek as "Social Darwinism." The difference between an economic theory that rewards social Darwinism is charity. The Bible never allows us to reward someone for laziness, but charity (not handouts) allows people to have compassion. To that end, in general for the last several election cycles, the Republicans candidate has donated a much higher percentage of his income to charity.
If we want to discuss social darwinism, I think the educational system is a better place to begin. For that matter, both the Republicans and Democrats have enacted policies that are social darwinistic in nature.
If taxes are cut who will buy more consumer goods? You all say that the working class don't pay taxes, only the middle class and rich pay taxes. The working class will not get any money back.
The best thing one could do with extra money is to pay off existing loans and bills, not buy more toys.
The rich people already have more money than they know how to spend. Why would they buy more consumer goods? They will buy more power. Run more small banks out of business. Build more big box stores. run small businesses into bankruptcy.
I find communism a bigger threat in our discussion. When people are willing to look at me or anyone else and say, "You have more than enough money", then that is the opposite of social darwinism, but it is still social engineering.
Rather, instead of being hypocrite and by advocating another form of social engineering, be consistent and espouse a Biblical concept of stewardship. This is neither Republican nor Democrat and deals with the heart, not the politics.
I don't care how much money anyone makes, it is none of my business (nor yours). I do care about your heart before the Lord.
Outstanding post. Well-thought out, and not reactionary.
Umm, I don't know...consumers?
Two problems there: We talk about taxes, and forget about taxes that simply are not called such. Our ole' buddy FICA, for instance. Sales taxes. Fees. Stupid government hidden gotchas. So the working class does get hit...just not firsthand by income taxes.
But then we get to the second item: More money available, and less uncertainty, means more jobs. Some will invest in their business. Some will very graciously share the blessings (I had an employer in college that routinely gave his workers--mostly 20 hr/wk. college students, Christmas bonuses of $1,000 or more--in the late 1980's, even!)...and some will splurge; but even that makes a difference. I have a cousin who helps build yachts. Don'tcha think he wants some folks to splurge?
Also, let's quit thinking of "getting money back." It's our money to start with. Taxes are a necessary evil...but I'm always bothered when government acts as if they are doing us a favor by "giving us money back." It was ours to start with!
We seldom agree, but when it comes to family finance, our positions aren't far apart at all. However, even the "toy-buyers" have a positive impact on the economy--as long as they're not doing what too many did a few years ago--and end up defaulting, by the gazillions, on home loans, etc.
An enormous overgeneralization. Business folk and businesses by the droves re-invest available capital.
Not to mention that draconian regulation or socialistic re-engineering doesn't alleviate "power-buying;" rather, it simply moves it from the private sector to the public one.
And, being as the public sector involves IRS, law enforcement, and other folks with guns--I'd rather take my chances with the private folks, all other things being equal.
Furthermore--if a fella has earned a pile of money, good for him. As long as it was honest $$, why should I care, or have a say, regarding how he spends it? It's his (hers)!
Yeah, because we all know that a few elites disconnected from the real world can push the right buttons and pull the right levers to make the world go 'round.
It can't possibly be, you know, individuals and businesses freely making exchanges to improve each other by improving themselves.
Robert Reich couldn't make an honest buck if his life depended on it. He's a classic unionist and bureaucrat--decries the plight of the "common worker," and "middle-class taxpayer," and then uses those very people to make his own way.
Reich actually says this:
He must think stupid is in this year.