|
|
As a general note, you don't want to have TOO much faith in the free market. You can't just say idle workers should hold their breath and wait for a genius entrepreneur to come up with an idea that requires their services.
On the other hand, since 2008 we've seen the limits of what the government can do to help the economy. The government can mitigate suffering through social programs and it should, but it can't generate growth on its own.
The Great Depression programs are a little bit different because people were willing to make a lot of sacrifices for World War II. The government widened the tax base and started collecting them directly from paychecks, it conscripted a generation of young men and sent many off to their deaths, and it took away all kinds of civil rights. But if the choice is "accept this or we're going to lose the war", then people will put up with it.
Today the choices are not quite so obvious.
|
On July 21 2012 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2012 00:56 SayGen wrote:On July 21 2012 00:49 Lightwip wrote:
The market sure solved itself into the current economic downturn. Do some research about the business cycle and how it works. Things get built, destroyed, and rebuilt stronger. The market works- but don't ever expect cloud free days everyday. It has to rain for grass to grow. Nice try though Is that why recessions are happening faster and faster and more severe? Sure is getting stronger. THIS recession is more severe. But post WW2 the trend was for recessions to be less frequent and less severe.
I'd say the Federal Reserve has a lot to do with that. They've made a few mini-recessions to avoid a financial collapse.
They just goofed with this one. They decided to help with the dotcom bubble for way too long.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote:Link to BO's textThe context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. Show nested quote +“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
- Atlas Shrugged, P1C9
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
Obamas speech, for reference, bolding my own.
+ Show Spoiler +There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
|
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
Pretty soft support for free markets IMO. I don't think it's weird that someone who makes a million dollars a year might pay a smaller % in income taxes than someone who makes $100k. It really depends on how they made their money and what kinds of risks they took.
A person making $100k in a secure, stable position can afford to pay a high % in income taxes because they benefit strongly from society providing the stability of their position. A person who makes $1M in a high-risk venture may have taken significantly more risk and didn't benefit very much from the existing structure.
What it comes down to is whether you want to create the incentive for taking certain big risks by reducing the taxes on those types of ventures. Over the last 20 years, we've reaped many benefits of taking big risks, particularly in technology. But we've now seen the downsides of taking big risks and it's time to re-assess whether the incentives are still good.
If you're a real supporter of free markets, you don't want the government thinking it can guide these kinds of incentives at all, you just support people doing what they want in commerce with the government only enforcing enough limits to prevent abuse (editorial note: the government has done a HORRIBLE job here, both Bush and Obama). To take a principled stand, you can't take the position of "I support free markets when they create jobs and growth, I don't support them when companies lose money".
|
On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well.
|
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds.
|
On July 21 2012 03:49 coverpunch wrote:
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds.
Just making the point that all this arguing about rich paying lower rates than their secretaries is pretty idiotic.
|
On July 21 2012 03:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well.
You should take the rate of taxation of normal investments, then use it to fund public projects and reduce the number of bonds being issued in the first place.
|
On July 21 2012 04:05 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 03:49 coverpunch wrote:
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds. Just making the point that all this arguing about rich paying lower rates than their secretaries is pretty idiotic.
You dont see anything odd in the fact that theres a system that taxes people increasingly based on how much money they make, yet the person that makes a million dollar will give back the same amount as the person who has made 200K ? Or at least understand how some people could think that something seems wrong with that ?
On July 21 2012 03:26 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
A person making $100k in a secure, stable position can afford to pay a high % in income taxes because they benefit strongly from society providing the stability of their position. A person who makes $1M in a high-risk venture may have taken significantly more risk and didn't benefit very much from the existing structure.
If I made $1M this year and you have made $100K, I am definately able to afford a bigger amount of taxes.
Its one or the other here, either you ask for a free market and accept that you might crash and burn, or you ask for help from your governement but give back more if you actually manage to make it. Theres something wrong in a system that heavily rewards people who made it instead of rewarding people who try to make it, if youve made it you already got your reward which is more money than others.
|
On July 21 2012 05:45 TurpinOS wrote:
If I made $1M this year and you have made $100K, I am definately able to afford a bigger amount of taxes.
Its one or the other here, either you ask for a free market and accept that you might crash and burn, or you ask for help from your governement but give back more if you actually manage to make it. Theres something wrong in a system that heavily rewards people who made it instead of rewarding people who try to make it, if youve made it you already got your reward which is more money than others.
The fairness of the tax system is not simply about what you can afford but what you did to earn your income.
However, I do agree with you strongly that there's something rotten about the system if people who take big risks are able to keep large portions of their income when they make gains but they can get government bailouts if they suffer losses.
The ultimate point is that the currency of modern finance is trust. When someone like Ron Paul wants to fall back to the gold standard, it's implicitly a criticism that he doesn't trust the government to do the right thing when push comes to shove, whether that means enforcing property rights or protecting society from abuse. If you support more taxes and more regulations, then you are trusting the government to use revenues efficiently and to properly oversee that the free market is indeed free from manipulation and exploitation.
Personally, when I see things like the $25 billion settlement from banks to avoid any criminal liability for mortgage fraud or that the Fed and Treasury knew about Libor manipulation since 2008 but didn't do anything about it, I become very skeptical that the government deserves my trust.
|
On July 21 2012 05:45 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:05 Kaitlin wrote:On July 21 2012 03:49 coverpunch wrote:
Lol, you really like those tax exempt bonds. Just making the point that all this arguing about rich paying lower rates than their secretaries is pretty idiotic. You dont see anything odd in the fact that theres a system that taxes people increasingly based on how much money they make, yet the person that makes a million dollar will give back the same amount as the person who has made 200K ? Or at least understand how some people could think that something seems wrong with that ?
But they don't. The person making a million will pay more.
|
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote:Link to BO's textThe context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. Show nested quote +“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
- Atlas Shrugged, P1C9
His point wasn't that a person couldn't theoretically be successful without government, or that an anarchy couldn't be equally or more successful. His point was that that isn't the world we actually live in. In our current system, pretty much everybody has used some type of government service. Few if any people got to where they are today independently of the government. People saying they're self-made or that they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps are ignoring the vast system of public services - the rule of law, roads and national infrastructure, public schools (even if they went to a private school, what about their employees?), etc - that benefit everybody.
Now some people might not like that and believe we'd be better off without any government at all. Ok fine we've all got opinions. An American businessman today, however, has enjoyed many services that come through gov't/shared sacrifice.
|
On July 21 2012 01:06 Epocalypse wrote:Link to BO's textThe context is Obama’s full presidency. He is a socialist. The content of his speech is filled with “you didn’t do it on your own” for the reason that if you accept this notion, then you owe everyone else something, you have an unquantifiable debt to society. It’s a call to loot those who have produced by their own effort. Bridges, roads, teachers, sunlight. That’s all given, the same stuff that everyone has access to and not something you choose. But one person can choose not to apply his mind and become a bum while another person can apply his mind and be successful. Each of those people, earned what they got, and it is thanks to their own effort. It’s also ludicrous to think that given the choice, people wouldn’t freely build all those things, as if we need government to run our schools, to build our roads. This notion is false and flies in the face of history. But Obama knows that, he just wants you to forget it, he wants to reinforce that we need a parent state. Clearly Obama is consistent with the sentiment that “you didn’t get there on your own” because of the rhetoric he uses, instead of mentioning what it takes to be successful, he tells you, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t do it on your own. Here’s a bit about what businessmen risk: Having a dream and working to actualize it, working long hard hours not knowing what will come of them, taking all the risks in funding, in family, in friendship, dedicating time to a potential flop. Saying something like this would be acknowledging the heroism of businessmen, BO does none of that. But also remember, businesses and businessmen already pay taxes, and the more successful, the more they pay. Yet BO does not make mention of that, rather he says "We then ask that the wealthy pay a little more". Even more than they already pay? And by “ask” he means “force”. More context: the crowd. “You didn’t get there on your own,” crowd yells in agreement “That’s right” “it must be because I was just so smart.” The crowd mocked that with laughter. They are basically mocking success; Obama knows it, as it was his intended goal. He is speaking to the envy of success in those people, and it’s loudly responding. Now these people will be happier to loot the rich and successful. Then, after focusing on bashing success and businessmen at length he throws in this “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” To mask the vileness of what he had said before. Obama doesn’t hate business owners, he needs them to loot. He just wants you to hate them so that when he does loot them, you won’t create a fuss. Quote from Atlas Shrugged - touches on what BO is trying to cash in on. Show nested quote +“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”
- Atlas Shrugged, P1C9
Barack Obama is not a socialist, he is not a communist, he is not a fascist, he is not a Muslim, he is not an atheist, he is not a Kenyan, he is not reptilian, etc. There are plenty of things to criticize Obama for without making things up.
|
On July 21 2012 04:32 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 03:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well. You should take the rate of taxation of normal investments, then use it to fund public projects and reduce the number of bonds being issued in the first place.
So what you're basically saying is that the public should be the one who gets benefits off any investment, regardless of whether the capital is private or public.
This is one of those good intentions that ends up killing entire countries. Whenever you create a system where all capital, private and public, is directed to improve the public welfare, inevitably that means putting the capital under the control of the government--either via soft incentives, like tax policy, or harder incentives, like restrictions on which banks you can put your money in.
What then happens is that the capital gets redirected to benefit those with political power, and instead being redirected to benefit people, it gets redirected to benefit politicians. Don't believe me? There was a country in Asia which did this on a massive scale--not China, but Japan.
Japan through the 1960s to 1980s did quite well, by forcing capital through a handful of zaibatsu banks that ostensibly were there to not only make money, but also channel investment to sectors favored by the almighty Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI, and no, that acronym is not a joke--they were fucking big and scary back in the day.)
Eventually what happens, though, is that benefits began to accrue to those with connections to the teat of public capital--financing uneconomic bridges to nowhere and golf courses with endless amounts of free or low-interest rate loans--while costs were socialized onto the borrower (the entire country). Every economic decision-maker got a huge case of "it's someone else's money, why bother." And what ends up happening is that once the easy fruit is gone--once Japan hit a point where it could no longer develop by copying models or technologies abroad (around 1987 or so)--it had to rabidly step up the public capital spending because there was no organic growth left possible in the old model.
Then what happened is that the whole set-up ran out of gas. Some pretty funny things happened along the way: the Nikkei hit a level nearly the size of the entire NYSE, when the Japanese economy was only 50% of the size of America's; land prices in Tokyo hit a point where the real estate of Tokyo was worth more than the entire states of California, Oregon, and Washington; and Japan four times as many golf courses per capita as the next highest country. In case you think those are good things, think again: those all represented failed investments with public money, or better put, the savings of an entire country, blown on investments which won't actually create any economic return. This was the end product of a system whose original intention was to put cash in the right place, but which ended up creating structural bubbles that dwarf the 2007 subprime mortgage mess, much as a hurricane dwarfs a tornado.
And this hits at the root of things: when a capitalist-capitalist country gets a bubble, individuals are wiped out. Companies are wiped out. But the public balance sheet is not badly affected. The size of the bubble is smaller, because only a percentage of national capital goes into the failed projects. But when a crony-capitalist country gets a bubble, its is bigger--because more and more money gets sucked into it, forced by the government.
And really--not just Japan--every single Asian country that did this model eventually hit the wall. As MightyAtom will tell you, 1997 was a very un-fun time for any East Asian economy, due in no small part to folks like George Soros recognizing the weaknesses of this model and exploiting them very, very painfully.
Put simply, putting capital under the command of a centralized authority can generate huge gains in a short period of time, but only if you're playing catch-up--because even if your people have an incentive to behaving irrationally, they're copying the rational behavior of people under a market-driven system.
But once you get to the top, you can't use that system any longer because there isn't any playbook for the elites to follow. So then they do what their incentives tell them to do: borrow public cash, invest it in something that looks good and is really visible (golf courses, airports, MOAR HIGHWAYS durr) and hope that it pays off.
The US is one of the most highly developed economies on Earth. We have no one left to copy. So if we adopt such a model, what happens is that we don't even get the benefits of rapid growth--we head straight into the crony capitalism phase. Do we really want that?
|
On July 21 2012 06:42 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:32 aksfjh wrote:On July 21 2012 03:46 Kaitlin wrote:On July 21 2012 03:08 TurpinOS wrote:
Im very much a supporter of free markets, but this is getting ridiculous, the full speech of Obama has been linked previously, and it is quite obvious that he made a terrible choice of words and what he actually meant is that, while entrepreneurs have done things on their own to be where theyre at, it wouldnt have been as easy (if doable at all) if they didnt have the support they got.
Its pretty obvious that there is something odd in a system when a guy that makes a million a year pays a smaller % of his income than someone who makes 100K.
If I have $1 billion which I choose to invest 100% in tax exempt bonds of universities across the country. My "income tax rate" is 0%. What % should I pay ? Keep in mind, that as you increase the tax rate on these investments, the interest rate that these institutions have to pay increases as well. You should take the rate of taxation of normal investments, then use it to fund public projects and reduce the number of bonds being issued in the first place. The US is one of the most highly developed economies on Earth. We have no one left to copy. So if we adopt such a model, what happens is that we don't even get the benefits of rapid growth--we head straight into the crony capitalism phase. Do we really want that?
In what reality has the U.S. already not been headed into crony capitalism far beyond any other First World social democracy (if you even count the U.S. as a social democracy in the first place) for decades?
|
Your post about Japan slightly mischaracterizes the situation but it might just be semantics.
But the thing about Japan and the other Asian countries is that their societies developed by finding the 100 smartest people in the country and putting them in charge of everything. The underlying justification is that society isn't developed enough to let the people decide what's best for the country.
And for the early stages of modern development, the system can work brilliantly, as it has in Asia. The 100 smartest people in Japan, a country of 125 million people, are pretty fucking smart.
The big problem you're talking about is what happens when the economy gets too big, society closes the knowledge gap, and the elite start making mistakes. The problem with an elite-dominated system is that the elite can be very reluctant to admit they've made an error and the problem with a more developed, better educated society is that people are quicker to realize when mistakes have been made. This is when you get lots of friction where the elite can either make concessions and society moves forward with a more empowered society or the elite simply learn to manipulate the system and stay on top, often at the expense of the rest of society.
Japan is currently in the strange phase where they kind of have both. Their political system is one of the ugliest and most broken in the OECD, but the Japanese people are also too proud to admit they're watching the world pass them by. The Japanese economy is 25% bigger today than it was in 1992. America's is 4x bigger. China's is 9x bigger. Korea's is 6x bigger.
The US is currently at the crossroads where we decide whether we should put more trust in elites to know what's best for us or more trust in the people and say majority elections provide a strong mandate.
|
Hahaha, I may not be conservative, but I think this meme is pretty hilarious...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Some of those memes have been pretty good, I gotta agree.
|
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that."
|
On July 21 2012 11:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i dont get what he was trying to say though... like was he saying that the government built the roads and shit?
cause it was construction companies and construction workers that built the roads. i doubt any sitting congressman was out there laying the asphalt and shit. and is he trying to say the government paid for the roads? cause taxpayers paid for the roads. the government literally sat on their ass and told some people to build roads with other people's money. and actually, if you are successful, you pay taxes... so you did "build that."
No, he was saying collective society enabled and supported you to build things yourself. He wasn't talking about what government has done for you. I'm not quite sure where people are getting that from, considering he was referring to teachers and other inspirations.
He was talking about what we all do for each other. You didn't get there on your own. People helped you and inspired you. It's really not that hard to understand...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/355/821/26c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/353/853/786.jpg)
