RadioFreeLiberal.com

Yes, I believe in progressive taxation, aka, the poor should pay little to none, the middle class a little bit, and the wealthy a lot. That's what that means.

When Mitt Romney complained that the poorest people (so called "47%") in this country don't pay taxes ... well, first off, they DO (they pay payroll taxes, sometimes state and property taxes, even if their federal income tax is zero/refund) ... and secondly in a fair, progressive system ... that's the way it should be. But that stat is off and he doesn't mention who it covers, like sick people. Do we really want to squeeze sick people or unemployed people for more taxes?

I don't think you can solve inequality through taxation directly. Nah, there's a lot of stuff to be done, most of it focusing on equality of opportunity. Maybe some wage restructuring. Oh and properly funding higher education.



Of course. By law, the government publishes its federal discretionary budget every year. They have to.

Now here's the deal. You and I will go through it and we may hate different stuff.



Am I upset at that tiny orange sliver, a fraction of which goes to food stamps?

Nah, to me I'm far more disgusted at that big ass 57% dark blue slice that goes to the military. Now don't get me wrong. I know we need a military. It's just that we spend a ridiculous amount of wasteful money on it and I hate government waste. That part of the pie is begging for trimming.

After we trim the big dark blue waste of space, it wouldn't bother me if the little orange sliver got a little bigger.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

When did we build the worlds biggest, greatest freeway system? When did we build the greatest economy on earth?

Answer (as you know but others dont seem to) at the SAME Time the tax rate was not 70% but 90%.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.

I am not real sure what exactly a communitarian is but I am pretty sure I am not a member. For better or worse, our system of government was setup in theory to respect the right of the individual. I accept that private industry has a great deal of influence and control over how I live and so does government for that matter. I am not looking to give either one more control than they already have. You don't like or believe in the system. I understand. But it is what we have and I do not believe people are willing to throw it all away and become communitarians. Some may. Others won't. We all get to choose.

That doesn't't mean we don't have an obligation or a duty to fellow human beings. We do. i don't think the private sector has all the answers for the ills and inequalities of society but I also don't think government has them all either.

The chart is somewhat misleading. It does not include all spending. Non discretionary spending is still spending. It's all money.

I happen to know what a communitarian is, since I'll be lecturing about it next week.

GWU - Communitarian Network
https://communitariannetwork.org

One of their founders, Amitai Etzioni, was a sociologist. Others were also, like Robert Bellah and Robert Putnam.

Unlike the U.S. Libertarians they are not an actual political party, but they are a social movement/ideological grouping.

BTW, I think to become a member, you merely need to endorse at their website that you support their platform/vision. You may not be asked for any money.

You might be interested not just in their economic positions, but on their positions on social issues. You could be surprised.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Well... while I do not disagree, that budget is the only thing they can vote on every year and amend by line or item. Hence "discretionary".

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Nice job of focusing on one work of a long and thoughtful post, so as to not address any of what Bird was actually talking about.

You're just not up to sitting at the grown-up table, are you?

true but if you look at where we spend our money it includes both discretionary and non discretionary spending. the deficit, now and in the future, is used to fund both types of spending.

It's a bit more complicated than you say.

I'll put it in these terms.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s- ... it-3305783

Thees folks agree with me on the two main causes of our massive deficits and debt: discretionary military spending and foolish supply-side tax cuts.

Now I'll begrudge their third point, SOME of the mandatory (non discretionary) "entitlement" budget is also adding to the deficit. But, for example, as they note, Social Security is NOT.

Interesting thing, of course, quite a few studies show we could reduce our spending on some of the other parts (notably Medicaid) through ... universal health care reform.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Coffeebucks-Man will think of them

Coffeebucks-Man

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI2SyfEfN2k

Once again...

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nobody but you is talking about a government that has "all the answers." You lie like a dog.

_________________

Ike, when dogs lie they sound off like "Whoof,,, woof, woof, woof." And they wag their tail.

Which makes more sense than what Joe sounds like when he lies.

_________________

Regarding your first statement you may not subscribe to the philosophy but you are a member of society. Regarding your second that is patently false. They established a government that respected white male property owners. This can be seen in their writings and even in the foundational documents themselves. I would exclude Paine from that to a degree. What very clearly underscores this is the concept of "accidental aristoi" which is the idea that a relatively small group of men (white, propertied) were somehow best suited to run the government. Jefferson and Adams discussed this.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 15s61.html

As the link notes there was a long discussion regarding naturally occurring aristocracy and what was called pseudo which held wealth by birth or perhaps other means but lacked virtue and what "to do" with this pseudo aristocracy. That pseudo aristocracy can be seen in those who wield wealth to impact the imperfect system you reference.

The entire discussion lies in what is called knights vs knaves. This is in particular applied to civil servants. the concept is that lacking a profit motive those in government seek to either enrich themselves somehow or they simply "go through the motions" and perform their function poorly. Whereas because the private sector person is motivated by personal profit he or she will always perform better than their counter part in the public sector. Thus the rationale for privatization. This is a false premise. Humans are what they are. We need only note the credit crash and Great Recession to see the failure on an epic scale of the "knight" in private sector.

Either way you miss the point. The form of government is not the problem nor did I say it was. The political economy as currently in existence is incapable of dealing with the problems we face primarily because of the private sector. Or rather because of power wielded within the private sector. The concepts of distortion, access, influence all play a significant role in changing government even the perception of government from a tool useful for addressing problems (what the accidental aristoi would be doing) to a unwieldy mish-mash caused in large part by pseudo aristoi.

So where does that leave Joe Memphis? Imo, it leaves him in society as a member of various groups and communities with social duties and responsibilities dependent upon those groups and dependent upon the space-time of those groups claiming belief in a party that is directly opposed to the statement he made that neither government nor the private sector holds the answers. That party believes that the private sector has all answers outside of the military and even that isn't completely true as the private sector has intruded and is expanding their intrusion into the military.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.

True. I am a member of society and I may agree with some of the communitarian philosophy. I disagree when it comes to your view of government. We have a bill of rights and a constitution that protects the rights of individuals. To my knowledge it doesn’t mention that only rich white guys need apply. I don’t know what was going on in the head of the founders at the time. I imagine it was a reflection to some degree of the times in which they lived. However, the law they created and committed to writing doesn’t make the distinctions you claim. Does it work perfectly? Certainly not. It is run by humans. But it’s design is to allow for individual liberty. It is built on enumerated rights. Limited government.

I don’t have an issue with government institutions. But what is the check on them? You don’t like large impersonal private companies but you have no problem giving more and more responsibility to one of the largest bureaucracies in the world and expecting different results. Personally, I don’t completely trust either the private sector or the public sector. We should be watching and questioning both. I am not one to turn over more control over my life and decisions to either of them. I am also not looking to abolish either one. They have a role to play but they need to work together and stay in their lanes.

As Jefferson noted rights are subject to change. You have no rights at all outside of the body politic. To assume that you have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly etc outside the body politic is naive at best. The bill of rights actually established those rights. Humans individually have no rights. The very concept of rights is a human construct. So, the next step is what is a human and what rights does that human have. We could obviously get lost in the minutia over defining humanness. That being said we will use a very simple definition of mankind. When aggregations of humans decide to collectively organize themselves they do so by government. Despite the founders naivety government is neither bad nor good. It simply is a tool utilized for various purposes. One purpose is to establish features, benefits and privileges of being human within the body politic. These are called rights. Rights are subject to limitation. You do not have unlimited freedom of speech. You do not have unlimited freedom to assemble, you do not have unlimited freedom of the press and so on. All of these apply to humans. None of them apply to corporations because corporations are not humans. Thus the private sector cannot enjoy that which humans have. Because the only countervailing power to distortion of the body politic is government the private sector as an actor must assume a secondary position. Government, the body politic, the people as society as an aggregation have not only the right but the responsibility to limit the influence of the private sector. Does this mean limiting private property? Not arbitrarily so. Does this mean the state owning the means of production? Not arbitrarily so. Does this mean the state limiting when, where and how the private sector can operate? Most assuredly. Through economic theology we are told that there are such things as externalities. This concept is false on its face. ALL things exist within society. All things are interconnected and to varying degrees embedded as noted by Kari Polanyi Leavitt. What you either choose to ignore, do not care about or simply think you cannot impact is what has plagued government forever. The founders railed against government. Why? Because their rights were not protected but more importantly their monies were subject to forces they did not control to by those who could wield those forces. In other words they did not have access, influence. Today's Republican Party supports that very same situation on the opposing side of the founders. They support access and influence by wealth. They support distortion of the body politic by wealth. Whether you think yourself part of society, whether you think that government plays some role and the private sector plays some role and neither has all the answers MATTERS NOT. Because the party that you support supports those actions. They would have you, alone, laid out for exploitation of that which the founders actually were opposed to, corporatism as government. The freedom that they allegedly envisioned was not enshrined for all men, far from it. But over time it has come to mean much more for many more people with the government, not the private sector, supporting and protecting those rights. The Republican Party of the last 40+ years has sought to roll back protection for the benefit of wealth and the private sector. You are not free when you cannot afford that which you need to live. The endgame of capitalism as a political economy is not per se what Marx viewed. Rather it is minimization of the greater portion of the population by control of the tool called government for the benefit of the lesser portion of the population. It is about control. The concept of freedom as economic freedom reduced to freedom to shop is not freedom when humans cannot afford water, food, shelter or have access to labor which permits them too have access to those things.

At some point in time the planet will make our decision for us. I would rather we use the tools we have to make that decision. You want to have a business making and selling widgets? Fine. No one is stopping you. You will just do it within the confines of what society as a whole through its tool of government defines as the rules, laws and boundaries guiding those transactions with an eye to not just your wants, needs and even rights but everyone's wants. needs and rights. Breathable air, edible food, drinkable water, shelter from the elements are not the concern of the private sector because they are ends unto themselves. The only end that the private sector is ultimately concerned with is return. Such devolves to Neo-feudalism.

This was never about who has the best answers or the right answers. This is about who controls those answers to what end result.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.

The following are bullet points from a very long 538 article about Can A ‘Moderate’ Win The 2020 Democratic Primary? It's talking about the Democratic party base with the author obviously thinking about Joe Biden the whole while he's writing it. And he does talk about Joe, but I'm talking about when he's not talking about Joe, (he's talking about Joe Biden).

It relates to what you're talking about, that being that are Democrats are actually posed to do what your statement of position above would suggest. What I actually think exists is the development of political capital which would shore up Obamacare, something about Immigration, getting everyone protected from discrimination under title nine. Something about guns, (probably a placebo gun act).

I see that much energy I don't see more. I also don't think Joe Biden will run.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-there-be-a-moderate-lane-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/



I think those bullet points show one where the actual glass ceiling which caps some liberals ambitions is currently located.

What do you think Joe?

Not real sure what to make of all this. You spent a whole lot of words to say that what man creates man can destroy. I get that. But men did create the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the system they created is hard to destroy. That system provided for a federal government with limited powers. You are correct in that the founders didn't trust concentrating all that power in the hands of a few. Neither do I. I understand that we need regulation and that is certainly a function given to the federal government however, That power to regulate isn't and should not be unchecked.

You assessment of what motivates conservatives and republicans is your somewhat biased opinion. You are entitled to it. However, speaking for myself, my political beliefs have have nothing to do with wanting only the wealthy to control the levers of power. I just don't want unchecked government. I don't want government controlling or influencing most major areas of life. That isn't liberty in my opinion. So I don't buy into this big benevolent central government bureaucracy. It serves a purpose but it isn't my go to solution for all of the problems that plague society.

I think the Democrats have a very good chance of capturing the Senate and the White House. I could not believe Trump won the last election and I think given a viable alternative that independent and moderates will go to the Democrats. Trump has a base that will support him no matter what say 35%. In two years people are going to be tired of Trump and the dysfunction he brings. So what is a viable alternative to independent and moderates? That is the question. I think you are correct about the issues you mentioned: ACA, immigration at the top of the list. However, if they over reach they run the risk of alienating the middle. Medicare for all os a divisive issue and Republicans and Conservatives will focus on the cost of the program and what it will do to the tax rates of middle class taxpayers. Hard to say what Impeachment will do to the electorate. If the crimes are high crimes - it may favor the Democrats. If it is process type violations similar to the Clinton impeachment - it may benefit Republicans. Hard for me to say. It's anybody' guess. Nobody in leadership of the Democratic Party listens to or cares about the views of a conservative but I think they have a very good opportunity to pick up the Senate and WH as long as they don't over promise or over reach and alienate folks who vote in the middle.

JMHO

No, the system is very easy to destroy. Look at Hobby Lobby. Look at Citzens United, Buckley vs Valeo. Look at constant tax cuts and constant spending increases for the military/industrial/university complex. Look at false claims that social security and Medicare are in crisis. Look at claims that immigrants are a problem. Look at the Republican meme that government is the problem. Government doesn’t control or influence most day to day areas of life. Corporations do however. Corporations provide food at a price and at the locations of their choosing. Corporations decide what medical procedures and medicines they will pay for despite you or your employer paying for insurance. Corporations decide what happens with telecommunications systems. Corporations decide the quality and quantity of your life. Every day. And yet you fear that which has far less influence on your life.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.

The system, while not perfect, survives. We have had controversial court decisions before. We have survived tax cuts, tax increases, depressions, recessions, crashes, booms and busts. That's life. It aint always perfect. But we are still here. I am not quite as ready as you appear to be to throw in the towel and to surrender all control to government. I am also not ready to abolish government and let private industry operate unchecked. We've got stuff to figure out. We do need to solve the dysfunction that is currently running Washington but I fail to see how calling each other the enemy gets us anywhere.

Ah, but you sure like to call out enemies. Just more dancing around, never taking an actual stance, just attacking the stances of others.

Ah and your comment which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic in the OP nor anything in this thread is not an attack. Never mind the simple fact that I have never on this board referred to anyone as the enemy. So it’s just you making up shit to start an argument over nothing. Typical.

I have to agree on that part. We really do.

_________________
Human extinction is bad for business.

Never said anywhere that I am ready to surrender control to government. Government at least is elected. The private sector has no control on it other than government. The stuff to figure out is societal with the sole tools available being government to decide solutions. Those solutions can be government programs, they can be NGO's utilizing grants or other sources of funding, They can even be private sector depending upon the issue. But the private sector itself is incapable of providing solutions because that results in a shift for the populace from citizen to customer to object. When you are a customer and the private sector controls any choices you have you lack for freedom. As a citizen government is the tool you utilize to guarantee your freedom. Government should not be in the food growing business for instance. Government should be in the business to make sure food is grown and processed in a manner to insure food safety. You are a customer of the food industry. Your interests are actually of no interest to the industry other than you want food and they will provide it for a fee. As a citizen your rights including the right to not be poisoned by the food you eat are protected by government.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.