|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned.
What does it mean to earn a dollar? Maybe you only earned 75 cents. Try earning more money maybe?
|
If you believe everything you read on the Internet, I'm impressed you make any money at all.
|
On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned.
Taxes are for building public works. Roads, bridges, low income housing (think soviet blocs), waterworks, electrical grids, even libraries.
No-one seems to have a problem with pooling their money to build these things. If you do, go move to Kenya, they don't have taxes. Or anything else really.
Im not an American, but the 'taxes are evil' mentality has to stop. Tax money can be misallocated or lost to corruption, but the taxes themselves arent the problem. Rather, the inefficiency of their use is.
I would pay more taxes than I do now to keep my standard of living in Canada which is happening due to inflation. I'd pay even more if that meant better transportation, better infrastructure, more effective social welfare programs etc.
Every time an American complains about their tax rate they should be embarassed. Taxes are good. Complain about the bad spending of taxes. Try to out corruption. Its not 'me me me' try to think about your country.
Edit: I managed to not even mention healthcare once.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2016 03:18 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned. Qft! There shouldn't be any raise of taxes for anyone. Instead there should be better mechanism in allocating the resources more efficient by getting rid of bad investments.
Government is not a business. Government has to cover corner cases (i.e. bad investments), and it's not meant to be efficient. That's exactly the role of government in a lot of cases - to cover areas the private sector won't because the ROI is too low.
This idea that our #1 goal is to cut down on inefficiences and only focus on profit centers is exactly what leads to shit like the Flint water crisis. That mentality is toxic in government.
On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned.
This is incredibly short sighted.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2016 03:43 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned. Yeah but CEO's are evil bad guys who don't work hard and deserve to lose money to pay for the poor! I agree with where you are coming from, what's the point of being in the upper tax bracket if you are just going to get robbed once there? A lot of Sander's supporters are in college, who have probably never taken a paycheck in their life. The people who want these tax rates better be consistent with their position once they enter those tax brackets, otherwise hypocrites everywhere.
So I have a high paying operations job in a world class tech company and I'm quite sure a lot of my tech company colleagues disagree with your stance entirely. Paying taxes is fine, and paying higher taxes for making more money is fine.
Beyond that, there's a huge number of tax benefits that are in favor of the wealthy. The idea that welfare is only limited to the lower class is flat out wrong. The middle and upper class benefit hugely from government handouts.
|
On February 28 2016 04:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 03:43 biology]major wrote:On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned. Yeah but CEO's are evil bad guys who don't work hard and deserve to lose money to pay for the poor! I agree with where you are coming from, what's the point of being in the upper tax bracket if you are just going to get robbed once there? A lot of Sander's supporters are in college, who have probably never taken a paycheck in their life. The people who want these tax rates better be consistent with their position once they enter those tax brackets, otherwise hypocrites everywhere. So I have a high paying operations job in a world class tech company and I'm quite sure a lot of my tech company colleagues disagree with your stance entirely. Paying taxes is fine, and paying higher taxes for making more money is fine. Beyond that, there's a huge number of tax benefits that are in favor of the wealthy. The idea that welfare is only limited to the lower class is flat out wrong. The middle and upper class benefit hugely from government handouts.
adding to this I'm pretty sure that so called "corporate welfare" is pretty insanely high. the only difference is that it's seen as a good thing by people because they think it will bring in companies which lead to jobs. businesses get a lot more breaks than lower class people (who actually spend all the welfare they get by putting it directly into the economy)
|
At the age of 26 I was already close to the top taxation bracket in Denmark - and I paid my taxes happily! Paying for a better educated co-populace is absolutely worth it.
|
Bisutopia19379 Posts
On February 28 2016 04:23 Thaniri wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned. Taxes are for building public works. Roads, bridges, low income housing (think soviet blocs), waterworks, electrical grids, even libraries. No-one seems to have a problem with pooling their money to build these things. If you do, go move to Kenya, they don't have taxes. Or anything else really. Im not an American, but the 'taxes are evil' mentality has to stop. Tax money can be misallocated or lost to corruption, but the taxes themselves arent the problem. Rather, the inefficiency of their use is. I would pay more taxes than I do now to keep my standard of living in Canada which is happening due to inflation. I'd pay even more if that meant better transportation, better infrastructure, more effective social welfare programs etc. Every time an American complains about their tax rate they should be embarassed. Taxes are good. Complain about the bad spending of taxes. Try to out corruption. Its not 'me me me' try to think about your country. Edit: I managed to not even mention healthcare once.
I'm okay with the sales tax I pay that funds roads, bridges, etc. That sales tax goes to local government represented by officials my community voted for as they best represent our needs. I am against high income taxes where money earned does not equal money taken home. That's a reason why i find myself liking the fair tax idea which is money going to the federal government based on how much I choose to spend. I'm by no means saying taxes are bad, but I'm allowed to like another system better then the current one where it's a set 25% taken out of every pay check.
And I'm sorry, it is ridiculous that anyone is calling me ignorant or shortsighted. My opinions can be different then yours. Either deal with it or take the time to generate well thought out, non aggressive post. Otherwise, why would I engage in a discussion with you.
|
What you're describing is charity, not taxation. The whole point of taxation is that some people get more out of it than they pay in. And if everybody would get to decide what to do with every tax dollar individually we'd all be mad within a week.
|
On February 28 2016 05:16 Ghostcom wrote:
At the age of 26 I was already close to the top taxation bracket in Denmark - and I paid my taxes happily! Paying for a better educated co-populace is absolutely worth it.
You live in a country with a low public debt/debt to GDP. It's one metric to say it spends within its means, and you say well spent. Imagine it doubles to 90% of GDP or 100%. Are you still supposed to say, "Whatever, I'm happy to pay for a better educated country." If it balloons, you cut spending. If you have a history when taxes increases 1$ and spending increasing 3$, you don't raise taxes. If nobody in Washington wants to cut spending and everybody wants to raise taxes, you starve the beast. It's an imperfect solution to an insular political elite.
On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned.
I second you. It is bullshit.
When government ventures beyond infrastructure and defense and into redistribution, who's to say it's the better spender? It's that the taxes it takes it are badly spent, and spent above its means, that makes it a far wiser move to not take so much from the American taxpayer that spends his own money much better than an entity transferring other people's money to other people.
|
On February 28 2016 06:17 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 04:23 Thaniri wrote:On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned. Taxes are for building public works. Roads, bridges, low income housing (think soviet blocs), waterworks, electrical grids, even libraries. No-one seems to have a problem with pooling their money to build these things. If you do, go move to Kenya, they don't have taxes. Or anything else really. Im not an American, but the 'taxes are evil' mentality has to stop. Tax money can be misallocated or lost to corruption, but the taxes themselves arent the problem. Rather, the inefficiency of their use is. I would pay more taxes than I do now to keep my standard of living in Canada which is happening due to inflation. I'd pay even more if that meant better transportation, better infrastructure, more effective social welfare programs etc. Every time an American complains about their tax rate they should be embarassed. Taxes are good. Complain about the bad spending of taxes. Try to out corruption. Its not 'me me me' try to think about your country. Edit: I managed to not even mention healthcare once. I'm okay with the sales tax I pay that funds roads, bridges, etc. That sales tax goes to local government represented by officials my community voted for as they best represent our needs. I am against high income taxes where money earned does not equal money taken home. That's a reason why i find myself liking the fair tax idea which is money going to the federal government based on how much I choose to spend. I'm by no means saying taxes are bad, but I'm allowed to like another system better then the current one where it's a set 25% taken out of every pay check. And I'm sorry, it is ridiculous that anyone is calling me ignorant or shortsighted. My opinions can be different then yours. Either deal with it or take the time to generate well thought out, non aggressive post. Otherwise, why would I engage in a discussion with you.
Ha
And I'm sorry, it is ridiculous that anyone is calling me ignorant or shortsighted. My opinions can be different then yours. Either deal with it or take the time to generate well thought out, non aggressive post. Otherwise, why would I engage in a discussion with you.
The person who opened with...
He even proposed a 90% income tax on the 1%. It's sickening to think someone could only be earning 10 cents on every dollar they get.
lol...That's not an opinion. That's nonsense, based on ignorance.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote:
When government ventures beyond infrastructure and defense and into redistribution, who's to say it's the better spender? It's that the taxes it takes it are badly spent, and spent above its means, that makes it a far wiser move to not take so much from the American taxpayer that spends his own money much better than an entity transferring other people's money to other people.
1) The world governments that matter all spend above their "means" - the US is no exception. Their purpose is fundamentally different than a businesses' which is why they're able to adjust what their means are in order to accomplish it.
2) With that logic, why are you even extending government domain to infrastructure and defense? Why don't you think private institutions could handle infrastructure and defense better?
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 28 2016 06:17 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 04:23 Thaniri wrote:On February 28 2016 03:11 BisuDagger wrote:On February 28 2016 02:56 The_Templar wrote:On February 28 2016 02:17 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 28 2016 01:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Bisudagger Sanders is talking about a marginal tax rate , nobody will be paying 90% on every dollar they earn Nor would the maximum bracket be anywhere near 90% Nope. The media/Trump have been pretty bad about saying what Sanders' tax plan actually is. Look it doesn't matter if the tax rate is 90%. I'm pissed if the tax rate goes up any percentage for any bracket. I only take home 75 cents on the dollar and I make an average income. To me 25% of what I earn is a lot to lose. I have no skin in the game when it comes to the top 1%, but it's bullshit to take so much from money earned. Taxes are for building public works. Roads, bridges, low income housing (think soviet blocs), waterworks, electrical grids, even libraries. No-one seems to have a problem with pooling their money to build these things. If you do, go move to Kenya, they don't have taxes. Or anything else really. Im not an American, but the 'taxes are evil' mentality has to stop. Tax money can be misallocated or lost to corruption, but the taxes themselves arent the problem. Rather, the inefficiency of their use is. I would pay more taxes than I do now to keep my standard of living in Canada which is happening due to inflation. I'd pay even more if that meant better transportation, better infrastructure, more effective social welfare programs etc. Every time an American complains about their tax rate they should be embarassed. Taxes are good. Complain about the bad spending of taxes. Try to out corruption. Its not 'me me me' try to think about your country. Edit: I managed to not even mention healthcare once. I'm okay with the sales tax I pay that funds roads, bridges, etc. That sales tax goes to local government represented by officials my community voted for as they best represent our needs. I am against high income taxes where money earned does not equal money taken home. That's a reason why i find myself liking the fair tax idea which is money going to the federal government based on how much I choose to spend. I'm by no means saying taxes are bad, but I'm allowed to like another system better then the current one where it's a set 25% taken out of every pay check. And I'm sorry, it is ridiculous that anyone is calling me ignorant or shortsighted. My opinions can be different then yours. Either deal with it or take the time to generate well thought out, non aggressive post. Otherwise, why would I engage in a discussion with you.
Your description of a fair tax is a regressive tax, fyi.
|
Ok if you don't like taxes in the hands of the government, make corporations spend that money on their workers. There is 0 reason why the top dogs of corporations earn that much money for what they do. Instead of that money going to the government set a system where executive compensation is capped and tied to performance/profits of the company and some system where the company invests in its own workforce. Adds incentives top down for everyone to do better and keeps more money in citizen hands as opposed to shelling out to the government.
In the same way communism fails in practice capitalism has similar flaws where the on paper effects have failed in practice and some of the underlying conditions the system presumes about society are not met in the US right now. Instead we see something similar to what happened in the USSR where wealth is hoarded by the small elite populations.
|
Who looks at "how much they earn" as their gross wages? Your take-home pay is how much you earn. Gross pay is a socially negotiated number that has no relation to take-home pay.
|
On February 28 2016 06:59 IgnE wrote:
Who looks at "how much they earn" as their gross wages? Your take-home pay is how much you earn. Gross pay is a socially negotiated number that has no relation to take-home pay.
Almost everyone? When someone says they make $75k per year, or they make $10/hour, they are telling you their gross pay. They aren't telling you that their take-home pay is 75k/$10 and that their gross pay is really some number higher.
|
On February 28 2016 06:54 Slaughter wrote:
Ok if you don't like taxes in the hands of the government, make corporations spend that money on their workers. There is 0 reason why the top dogs of corporations earn that much money for what they do. Instead of that money going to the government set a system where executive compensation is capped and tied to performance/profits of the company and some system where the company invests in its own workforce. Adds incentives top down for everyone to do better and keeps more money in citizen hands as opposed to shelling out to the government.
In the same way communism fails in practice capitalism has similar flaws where the on paper effects have failed in practice and some of the underlying conditions the system presumes about society are not met in the US right now. Instead we see something similar to what happened in the USSR where wealth is hoarded by the small elite populations.
It all depends on what you've majored in.
You got to make the correct choice to choose the right path.
|
On February 28 2016 06:33 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote:
When government ventures beyond infrastructure and defense and into redistribution, who's to say it's the better spender? It's that the taxes it takes it are badly spent, and spent above its means, that makes it a far wiser move to not take so much from the American taxpayer that spends his own money much better than an entity transferring other people's money to other people. 1) The world governments that matter all spend above their "means" - the US is no exception. Their purpose is fundamentally different than a businesses' which is why they're able to adjust what their means are in order to accomplish it. 2) With that logic, why are you even extending government domain to infrastructure and defense? Why don't you think private institutions could handle infrastructure and defense better?
Fundamentally different too, given its ability to hide future liabilities from the balance sheet. Businessmen would be in prison for cooking the books.
World governments do have the same sickness and are weathering the same ill effects. Poor growth, heavy emphasis to move the company to tax havens. We're not quite exceptional in that problem (lol) it's just when everybody got the same sickness it makes commiserating so much happier. You can take a look at the heaviest debtor countries to see what happens when the debt grows too large to be repaid.
Just taking the US into consideration, servicing the debt will soon grow to more than defense spending (this year alone, interest spending . Social security and the various health care programs will balloon. The long term effect is there's no tax policy that will pay these debts without reforms. There isn't enough ability to adjust their means to cope with the ballooning debt and neither party is willing to cut outlays.
I took infrastructure and defense as examples because they were provided for in the constitution. The social contract that the current government's founders signed on to voluntarily surrendered some rights for mutual benefit. The big mess of welfare expenditure and redistribution (but with today's levels I restate myself) is a relatively modern change. It surprised the father of the constitution, Madison, in less than a decade after passage that Congress appropriated fifteen grand for French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." That is what underpins my scruples. The citizen's government is acting in a way contrary to its design, but the distortion and greed is without a check, much like a populist in a banana republic before its collapse. The people vote themselves into soft despotism and then tyranny.
I want to turn this ship of state around towards limited government. Clinton and Bernie would keep it going in the same direction faster; Trump won't turn it but might slow it down, I'm not sure. If there's ever a remarkable change in political climate, call it the next incarnation of Reagan without a cold war to fight if you want, then we can talk about remaking public works and defense. I'm not happy with the bureaucratic Pentagon and I'm sure private industry can do it better. Today that'd just be one more over-regulated boondoggle and there's much more important issues to address.
|
So no one who's not paying attention to Bernie might know this but there were marches across the country in support of Bernie (#MarchForBernie).
But everyone remember the media needs you to know there's a chance Rubio could gain 20 points and win in Florida weeks from now. Really though, how do people not see how badly they are being played?
|
On February 28 2016 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2016 06:33 Jibba wrote:On February 28 2016 06:23 Danglars wrote:
When government ventures beyond infrastructure and defense and into redistribution, who's to say it's the better spender? It's that the taxes it takes it are badly spent, and spent above its means, that makes it a far wiser move to not take so much from the American taxpayer that spends his own money much better than an entity transferring other people's money to other people. 1) The world governments that matter all spend above their "means" - the US is no exception. Their purpose is fundamentally different than a businesses' which is why they're able to adjust what their means are in order to accomplish it. 2) With that logic, why are you even extending government domain to infrastructure and defense? Why don't you think private institutions could handle infrastructure and defense better? Fundamentally different too, given its ability to hide future liabilities from the balance sheet. Businessmen would be in prison for cooking the books. World governments do have the same sickness and are weathering the same ill effects. Poor growth, heavy emphasis to move the company to tax havens. We're not quite exceptional in that problem (lol) it's just when everybody got the same sickness it makes commiserating so much happier. You can take a look at the heaviest debtor countries to see what happens when the debt grows too large to be repaid. Just taking the US into consideration, servicing the debt will soon grow to more than defense spending (this year alone, interest spending . Social security and the various health care programs will balloon. The long term effect is there's no tax policy that will pay these debts without reforms. There isn't enough ability to adjust their means to cope with the ballooning debt and neither party is willing to cut outlays. I took infrastructure and defense as examples because they were provided for in the constitution. The social contract that the current government's founders signed on to voluntarily surrendered some rights for mutual benefit. The big mess of welfare expenditure and redistribution (but with today's levels I restate myself) is a relatively modern change. It surprised the father of the constitution, Madison, in less than a decade after passage that Congress appropriated fifteen grand for French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." That is what underpins my scruples. The citizen's government is acting in a way contrary to its design, but the distortion and greed is without a check, much like a populist in a banana republic before its collapse. The people vote themselves into soft despotism and then tyranny. I want to turn this ship of state around towards limited government. Clinton and Bernie would keep it going in the same direction faster; Trump won't turn it but might slow it down, I'm not sure. If there's ever a remarkable change in political climate, call it the next incarnation of Reagan without a cold war to fight if you want, then we can talk about remaking public works and defense. I'm not happy with the bureaucratic Pentagon and I'm sure private industry can do it better. Today that'd just be one more over-regulated boondoggle and there's much more important issues to address.
A next incarnation of Reagan "without a cold war to fight"? What fantasy are you living in? Reagan is responsible for the modern surge in deficit spending, and all that money pouring into the defense sector functioned as a Keynesian stimulus that is largely responsible for the prosperity that people associate with Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
