Cutting the deficit

Piezoe probably won't admit there are any inherent defects in socialism, so much for a real discussion.

There is not a single example out there of a nation becoming prosperous using socialism as a cornerstone, everyone gets wealthy off capitalism. Then curiously enough the socialists crawl out from cracks in the floor and demand social justice.

It's easy enough to solve the debt crisis as long as one admits that all people are not entitled to millions in medical care. I'll even go for some tax increases if we can get the left to back off their assinine idealogy.
 
I love the 'social justice' mantra. When the white, working middle class, and Southern demographics abandon you en masse, create a fresh core demographic through legislation (Immigration Reform) and bribe them with entitlements.

Oh, and in terms of Defense spending, since 1960 the Democratic Presidents have initiated conficts and heightened existing ones. Carter was the only President in the past 50 years who it can be said did not go out and start some shit and get America involved in armed conflict when not directly attacked.
 
Quote from bone:

Oh, it would appear that your ilk is entitled to unilaterally change all of that by judicial activism and executive fiat. Social justice. One political party gets to pick winners and losers, and one political party gets to redistribute an entire society's wealth. Use and create entitlements to bribe and buy your core voting constituency. It is working quite well for you in California and Illinois.
More...

That's not my "ilk" you are referring to. Perhaps you could make an effort to be more objective.
 
Is the problem that costs are out of control (too much spending) or that the company's prices are too low (not enough taxes).

------------------------

We're in a bit of a bind here. Cuts in spending have several problems.

Effective ways to cut spending are illegal, spending formulas are written into law.

Cut a million here and a million there is comparable to "pinching pennies" with a trillion dollar budget, everyone sighs and says "why bother?".
 
Quote from Mav88:

Piezoe probably won't admit there are any inherent defects in socialism, so much for a real discussion.

There is not a single example out there of a nation becoming prosperous using socialism as a cornerstone, everyone gets wealthy off capitalism. Then curiously enough the socialists crawl out from cracks in the floor and demand social justice.

It's easy enough to solve the debt crisis as long as one admits that all people are not entitled to millions in medical care. I'll even go for some tax increases if we can get the left to back off their assinine idealogy.
More...

I didn't comment on socialism. You must have confused me with someone else. But perhaps I could have been more clear. Capitalism by its most common definition is simply an economic system where capital and the means of production are in private, as opposed to government, hands. I strongly favor such a system.

If you want to argue that the "American" implementation of capitalism is perfect without defect, then we could discuss that.
In the meantime, you might want to look up the second and third definitions of capitalism because those definitions closely describe the "American" implementation.

Many, perhaps most, confuse free competition with capitalism. Perhaps you are one who does that. That's a mistake because in theory they are unrelated and in practice they are opposites.

Capitalism without free competition is, for most, a hideous system to live under. It is in this regard that the "American" version of capitalism has over time developed defects, and is becoming more defective rather than less.
 
Sorry if I characterized you incorrectly.

Systems of economic law can only try and do the most good for the most people, ideals cannot be attained because people are non ideal.


Certainly american capitalism can be made better for more people and generate more wealth, but that would mean many with good current arrangements would have to sacrifice. It ain't gonna happen, too many people either are in a lucrative position or they are dependent on the state. I would not say that for most the current position is hideous because right now the majority get some sort of state charity. People on the dole don't give a crap about what form of capitalism exists, all they want is for the charity to continue.
 
Nothing is going to be cut that will lose votes for Democrats. In the 1980's conservatives passed a balanced budget act. Reagan signed it. Democrats took it to the courts and got it thrown out. They always use the courts to overthrow the will of the people. Since then, well who cares? They are never going to be fiscally responsible, in fact many of them are in a plot to overwhelm the public services until the government collapses and they somehow see themselves as the victorious leaders, the "true representatives of the people" if you will, in the aftermath of all that.... Personally I think it is more likely they will go the way of the leaders of the Roman Empire at that point, they were "destroyed as a class" [hunted down, their villas looted, all the attorneys and politicians were killed off]. I don't own a gun, won't be looting or killing, I don't advocate that, but check out what the Zapatas are doing in Mexico, in the aftermath of a collapse people like the Zapatas are fully prepared for the situation, far moreso than a bunch of liberals with their panties in a bunch about anybody that earns more than they do....
 
Quote from Eight:

Nothing is going to be cut that will lose votes for Democrats. In the 1980's conservatives passed a balanced budget act. Reagan signed it. Democrats took it to the courts and got it thrown out. They always use the courts to overthrow the will of the people. Since then, well who cares? They are never going to be fiscally responsible, in fact many of them are in a plot to overwhelm the public services until the government collapses and they somehow see themselves as the victorious leaders, the "true representatives of the people" if you will, in the aftermath of all that.... Personally I think it is more likely they will go the way of the leaders of the Roman Empire at that point, they were "destroyed as a class" [hunted down, their villas looted, all the attorneys and politicians were killed off]. I don't own a gun, won't be looting or killing, I don't advocate that, but check out what the Zapatas are doing in Mexico, in the aftermath of a collapse people like the Zapatas are fully prepared for the situation, far moreso than a bunch of liberals with their panties in a bunch about anybody that earns more than they do....
More...

Neil Young, Harvest Moon album: "The same things that make you live, can kill you in the end." The Achilles heels of American democracy may be the votes of mindless sheeple. I am in California and grinding my teeth hating it, except for the SF Bay weather.

I would love to see Atlas Shrugged played out in real life. Now, all sheeple after me: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
 
Quote from piezoe:

Many, perhaps most, confuse free competition with capitalism. Perhaps you are one who does that. That's a mistake because in theory they are unrelated and in practice they are opposites.

Capitalism without free competition is, for most, a hideous system to live under. It is in this regard that the "American" version of capitalism has over time developed defects, and is becoming more defective rather than less.
More...

I agree it's necessary to agree on definitions of terms before arguing the rights and wrongs of something, esp as complex as economics.

The only way to cut the deficit is to:

1) end participation in all the wars,
2) stop all SSI except for elderly and retired, which DOES NOT include elderly immigrants who have never paid a dime in taxes
3) enact an annual LIMIT on govt-funded healthcare coverage
4) cut all foreign aid, military, civilian or otherwise
5) end the Fed and give the money-printing power back to Congress, where it belongs.

The argument that monetary policy should be kept out of Congress's hands out of conflicts of interests is the most idiotic argument ever, and it has been proven to be wrong the last 100 years. Recently saw the balance sheet of the Fed in an article, and it included billions of dollars in transfers made to various rogue govts and banks around the world. Is this the freedom from conflicts of interest that the Fed was supposed to have? It surely serves everybody's interest, except the American citizen's.

I am a naturalized citizen myself. My elderly father who works for over 10 years now has to pay grotesque taxes and a separate health insurance premium at 30% of his paycheck (with still only 80% coverage).

Meanwhile, the immigrant who came here to never work a day in his life gets SSI, free healthcare with 100% coverage (medicaid/medicare), and state subsidized housing that he then illegally rents out.

Can someone give me a big, fat WTF!
 
Here's how to fix the economy in the U.S.A.:

1. Implement a constitutional amendment which requires term limits.

2. Implement a constitutional amendment which requires a balanced budget.

3. Implement the FairTax.org plan.

4. Implement a constitutional amendment which eliminates the House Of Representatives.

5. Bring home every U.S. military man and military gun and every U.S. diplomat across the globe.

6. Implement a complete government takeover of the medical system. This would include shutting down completely Medicare and the Veterans system. (Everyone would be covered under one government system.)

7. Shut down NASA.

8. Withdraw from the U.N.

9. Seal the border. Expel all illegals.

10. Cut foreign aid, except in cases of emergency.

The people aren't taxed too little. The government spends too much.---Ronald Reagan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top