James Carville: 55% of voters think Obama is a Socialist

[Kulindahr]

The thing is, confiscatory taxes for the rich helps balance budgets. I don't think many here on JUB would agree with me, but I believe that a return to 70% income tax rates for the richest is in order.

I have no problem with that, until the national debt is gone.

After that, merely implement my "spread it out" alternative to the 'death tax'.

 

[BostonPirate]

Absolutely.

Making the people pay that are bilking the economy of millions if not billions 70 percent or more is a moral imperative. Otherwise there is profiteering going on during a recession. And thats not to say that profiting during a recesion is bad, Profiteering is.... taking untold wealth out of a damaged system, by gaming the rules, as it is trying to be mended is not what america is all about.

Our capitalist society has always had certain moral american failsafes that greed clouds.

 

[JB3]

Your garden variety government services: aid to the poor, infrastructure, law enforcement, public schools, inspection of food and drugs, national parks, child protection, etc. etc.

These systems would just collapse if they were contingent upon private funding.

How do you think they did it before the government was there? Do you honestly think those services just sprang up out of the ether when the government decided we needed them?

 

[BostonPirate]

How do you think they did it before the government was there? Do you honestly think those services just sprang up out of the ether when the government decided we needed them?

no thats the point. it didnt just spring up out of the ground.

people usually blacks, poor men, and all women never had an education. There was no infrastructure... remember lewis and clarke? they had to cut through the wilderness....poor people starved if they couldn't grow enough food, there was no way to guaranttee that what you were eating was not deadly, children had no protection, but in Salem MASS, they were hung for witchcraft...

this list goes on and on.

I don't want to go back to those days. I dont think any american wants to even give up their computer, and to have that, you have to have a building code for safety, lest you burn down your neighbors residence with your own, and you need an agency to regulate the cost of the energy, lest you pay unreasonable prices from just one provider.

there are real world things that the gov't needs to do and WE WANT them to do.

 

[JB3]

no thats the point. it didnt just spring up out of the ground.

That WAS the point. He claimed that the systems would collapse if they were based around private funding, which is false. The systems existed just fine before the government took them over, and will exist just fine when the government is unable to pay for them in the future.

 

[BostonPirate]

That WAS the point. He claimed that the systems would collapse if they were based around private funding, which is false. The systems existed just fine before the government took them over, and will exist just fine when the government is unable to pay for them in the future.

droid

think

did public school exist before the gov't created it? Did the FDA exist before the gov't created it?

 

[JB3]

droid

think

did public school exist before the gov't created it? Did the FDA exist before the gov't created it?

Not those exact agencies (well, in the case of public schooling, yes it most certainly did exist), but the functions did. That was my point, which apparently flew right over your head. The government comes in and commandeers those functions and people somehow think that they originated with the government and could not exist without it. The fact is that that is not true, and never has been.

 

[BostonPirate]

Not those exact agencies (well, in the case of public schooling, yes it most certainly did exist), but the functions did. That was my point, which apparently flew right over your head. The government comes in and commandeers those functions and people somehow think that they originated with the government and could not exist without it. The fact is that that is not true, and never has been.

the government always ran public schools, because poor people couldnt afford private ones, hense the name... public school. so they didn't exist before we created them.

the gov't didnt comandeer that function, it merely made it available to everyone, not just the rich.

 

[bankside]

Not those exact agencies (well, in the case of public schooling, yes it most certainly did exist), but the functions did. That was my point, which apparently flew right over your head. The government comes in and commandeers those functions and people somehow think that they originated with the government and could not exist without it. The fact is that that is not true, and never has been.

Actually we have a world of examples where the opposite is true. London Underground was built by private speculators who went bankrupt and had to be bailed out a hundred years ago. Then government ran it and built it and rebuilt it. Then they decided to do this incredibly modern innovative thing where the private sector would build it and maintain it and run it. 20% savings they said! 20% in beautiful, private sector efficiency! Wow ee!

And then those businesses collapsed and had to be bailed out by government.

Oh here's another function - universal health care. The market does not magically provide reasonable health care for people at all levels of affordability.

Mmm. How about health and safety consumer regulations?

Government doesn't "commandeer" these functions - they either invent them or do them more effectively than the private sector alternatives they replaced. And people know it, because they voted for it.

The private sector does very well in many areas. That makes those areas a political non-starter as far as rolling them into government. Here's an example: grocery stores. Are they ideal? No. Are they generally an example of useful private enterprise? Yes. If a political party came along and said "We need federal government grocery stores!" would they get voted in? No.

The reason people have voted for certain areas of service to be offered by government is because it makes sense to do so through government rather than the private sector. And whenever a politician comes along who "wants to reduce the size of government" and would like to score a few easy votes by bringing some "privatisation" to those sectors, it usually ends up costing the citizens more when the eventual bail-out is factored in.

 

[altlover85]

JBC, even if some of these things existed before the government, they didn't exist on the same scale. It's also unlikely that there were real standards that didn't vary widely from area to area without the government.

 

[MercuryJones]

the government always ran public schools, because poor people couldnt afford private ones, hense the name... public school. so they didn't exist before we created them.

the gov't didnt comandeer that function, it merely made it available to everyone, not just the rich.

True!

Thomas Jefferson advocated for a public school system, managed by government and free from religious influence, but it took a longer time to get there.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your garden variety government services: aid to the poor, infrastructure, law enforcement, public schools, inspection of food and drugs, national parks, child protection, etc. etc.

These systems would just collapse if they were contingent upon private funding.

They might collapse if a sudden switch were made at prersent, but only because Americans have bee trained to dependence.

Given time to transition, those I've put in green could easily be done without government, those underlined would take a little more work, but could be done. Infrastructure would depend on the specific kind.

 

[BostonPirate]

Given time to transition, those I've put in green could easily be done without government, those underlined would take a little more work, but could be done. Infrastructure would depend on the specific kind.

but why would we want to? doesn't that seem like an extreme loss of quality of life?

 

[Kulindahr]

people usually blacks, poor men, and all women never had an education.

Over-generalization.

There was no infrastructure... remember lewis and clarke? they had to cut through the wilderness.

That's a ridiculous example. Wilderness by definition has no "infrastructure"!

I don't want to go back to those days. I dont think any american wants to even give up their computer, and to have that, you have to have a building code for safety, lest you burn down your neighbors residence with your own, and you need an agency to regulate the cost of the energy, lest you pay unreasonable prices from just one provider.

I don't see the connection between computers and building codes....

But building codes are not necessary, and if desirable, government is not needed. The primary function of building codes at present is to make housing so expensive that the poor are stuck with living in places unsafe for human habitation, or becoming rent serfs to the wealthy, or both.

there are real world things that the gov't needs to do and WE WANT them to do.

No, on both counts.

 

[BostonPirate]

for you perhaps, but your opinion is not universal or even common.

people want this done for them. they expect it.

 

[Kulindahr]

the government always ran public schools, because poor people couldnt afford private ones, hense the name... public school. so they didn't exist before we created them.

the gov't didnt comandeer that function, it merely made it available to everyone, not just the rich.

Not so.

The first public schools were organized by those who could afford to do so and made available to everyone in the community. The teacher(s)' pay came from everyone as they could afford.

Only later did the government come along and take over.

And the world's first government-run schools for everyone were begun so that everyone could be formed into the government's image of a useful citizen -- a philosophy which rests on the premise that people are property of the State.

 

[Kulindahr]

but why would we want to? doesn't that seem like an extreme loss of quality of life?

What, getting rid of fat-ass bureaucrats who dream up regulations for no other reason than that they can, and exercise their power arbitrarily because they have men with guns to back them up, and replace them with people who actually have to provide efficient and effective service or lose their jobs due to market forces? I call that an immense improvement in the quality of life!

You really think that keeping an inefficient parasitic system when it could be replaced by an efficient one that earns its keep upholds "quality of life"???

 

[Kulindahr]

for you perhaps, but your opinion is not universal or even common.

people want this done for them. they expect it.

Because they have been taught, for a number of generations, that they are like children who need a nanny.

 

[BostonPirate]

You are saying that you want to go back one hundred years or so in developement of society to save a few bucks?

The answer is to use the technology at our disposal, collectively financed and shared, to improve our quality of life.

there are going to be people who game the system, but more people's needs are met.

we may be whiney right now in america, but our quality of life is better than most nations that have ever existed on the planet.

 

[floorrunner]

Nice story but the Democrats had a filibuster proof super majority so whatever they did or didn't pass is on them.

Finally someone who gets it.