Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by David

If you have no right to property that supersedes the political body in which you live, then no power on Earth (or elsewhere) can assure you of your right to liberty or even life itself. If you are in every respect SECONDARY to the state, the state can annihilate you, can crush you under its massively impersonal boot. That is the importance of your right to property.

Doesn't the recent Supreme court ruling on eminent domain pretty much eradicate our property rights, though?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

There is one way I see some of that happening that may be one of the positive things to come out of the Katrina disaster .I'm hoping that when people saw the grinding poverty and desperation there in New Orleans that they may come to an understanding of the growing inequity between the haves and have nots in this country.The disparity between the rich and poor in this nation is becoming greater than it has been in decades and the middle class is shrinking .If people wake up to what the neo-cons and their ilk are doing to our country ,I desperately hope there will be a populist revolution of some kind.I understand that socialist tenets are a hard sell in a large heterogenous country.Perhaps I am dreaming expecting people to do the right thing here ,but I don't want to completely give in to cynicism .

The only way change will happen in this country is if a proletarian revolution occurs. Until that time (and I doubt it will ever happen), the elite few will control all the resources and wealth, while everyone else gets the table scraps that they so generously throw. This country has always been about becoming rich and keeping everyone else down so that you can continue keeping your wealth. I don't see it changing any time without some drastic action taking place.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I would. Not because I wouldn't want to help people who need it, but because government spending is out of control. When they can eliminate their wasteful spending and use my tax money to help those who need it (i.e. when they can put much more funding into social programs), then they can tax me for half of my income. Heck knows I don't need all the money I make and I don't spend it all on myself, anyway. Until then, I'll donate my money instead of being robbed by the government to pay for trivial and insignificant **** when my money could be used to put food on a family's table or send a single mother to college.

Are making the same argument I made several months ago and was laughed at by - uh hmmmmm - you Nice to know you have come around though

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=markolas] You're mixing up two different parts of my post here. I never said we should tax rich people to make sure they're not extravagant. Personally, I wouldn't complain if I made $100,000 a year and paid half of it in income taxes. I could live quite easily on $700 a month if it wasn't for this damn car note. [QUOTE=markolas]

You may be able to and good for you of you do not mind paying $50,000 on $100,000 to the Feds and then even more to the state and local govs.0 - but my point is who are you to make that decision for someone else

Originally Posted by markolas

I never said anything about banning anything. Drama queen.

So, you just wanna bitch about a fifth vacation house, but not ban it (levity here )

Originally Posted by markolas

I never said all rich people are like that. The people I've heard say that aren't even rich.

I was going by your comment that "rich" people did that

___________________________________________________________

In the end, the gov. takes our money and squanders it and that is why many people scoff at paying more than 15% in taxes. I mean who wants to buy a $500 hammer or spend three times the amount it costs to build something just so a minority owned ompany can have a contract

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Unfortunately with the recent Emminent Domain ruling by the Supremes, you DONT own your property if the State wants/needs it. Thus, as you feared, we ARE secondary to the State at this point.

We always were under the theory of ED - the Sup. Ct. Ruling just sort of expanded it, but cases had already been occuring for awhile where the state took property and used it in a way that benefitted private companies. A good example of this is a highway, which serves the public, but is built by a private contractor. Many so called necessary highways or expansion of roads have been done to line pockets. So, while I abhor the recent USSC decision, it is nothing that new in the big scheme of things.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Yes, I do too. Everything needs to be balanced and rampant capitalism is really not a good thing for most people. It needs to have respect for the little guys. Do these folks not realize that whenever the "minions" become really opressed they revolt? I hope it doesn't come to that. It frightens me.

I think Clinton's recent comments are part of a bigger plan. I think maybe the Dems are finally getting their act together with a real plan to get senators in in 2006. Dean sent me a questionnaire regarding what my priorities were on the issues like healthcare, defense, tax cuts, etc. Hopefully it will help them actually speak to the party and serve its constituents.

I agree with you to an extent. But, as Sparky alluded to earlier, throwing money at the poor generally solves nothing in the long run. Thus, the inherent problem of a welfare state. I suppose we could have things like socialized medicine, but everything the govt. touches it ruins a la TSA.

So, I think, like Communism, a welfare state is nice on paper, but as we see now, it is not really working as well as it should.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The only way change will happen in this country is if a proletarian revolution occurs. Until that time (and I doubt it will ever happen), the elite few will control all the resources and wealth, while everyone else gets the table scraps that they so generously throw. This country has always been about becoming rich and keeping everyone else down so that you can continue keeping your wealth. I don't see it changing any time without some drastic action taking place.

But that is a generalization. I mean look at all the good the Vanderbilts did with their money. The Gates as well. Oprah certainly gives much of her's away. So, not all people are like that

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree with you to an extent. But, as Sparky alluded to earlier, throwing money at the poor generally solves nothing in the long run. Thus, the inherent problem of a welfare state. I suppose we could have things like socialized medicine, but everything the govt. touches it ruins a la TSA.

So, I think, like Communism, a welfare state is nice on paper, but as we see now, it is not really working as well as it should.

Yes, healthcare would be a good start. I do not mean welfare, I mean fair wages and such. More programs to help them out of poverty, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Yes, healthcare would be a good start. I do not mean welfare, I mean fair wages and such. More programs to help them out of poverty, etc.

Oh - I totally agree. I think working class wages could double in this country and that would be a good start. Sadly, if they double, then so will rents, food, etc. as all of that is sory of symbiotic.

But, as for healthcare, do you really think the govt. should run it I mean look at hoy most VA's and Charities are run. No thank you

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But that is a generalization. I mean look at all the good the Vanderbilts did with their money. The Gates as well. Oprah certainly gives much of her's away. So, not all people are like that

They are the few. I can't believe you would argue against the elite rich controlling almost everything and keeping the poor down to continue it.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Oh - I totally agree. I think working class wages could double in this country and that would be a good start. Sadly, if they double, then so will rents, food, etc. as all of that is sory of symbiotic.

But, as for healthcare, do you really think the govt. should run it I mean look at hoy most VA's and Charities are run. No thank you

Outsource the project to Canada's gov? I know what you mean, instead of the Midas touch they have the crap touch.

[David]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Yes, healthcare would be a good start. I do not mean welfare, I mean fair wages and such. More programs to help them out of poverty, etc.

Tort reform is a good place to start for bringing down costs of healthcare, but it has to be really serious & really creative -- not just lip service from campaigning politicians.

Imagine if you were a physician in private practice & you had to pay today's malpractice insurance premiums. You'd get an ulcer! You'd also pass your costs on to your patients -- & to the group coverers.

It's questionable that higher regulation creates lower prices. Look at such industries as medicine, manufacturing, oil, etc. We live in a regulatory climate, regardless of who is in the White House. A completely free market is nowhere to be found on Earth, as far as I know, at least not on the large scale of countries & nations.

[David]

Originally Posted by dissention

I can't believe you would argue against the elite rich controlling almost everything and keeping the poor down to continue it.

But they do so because government regulation & law enable them. In that sense, the American system -- under both parties -- is a distortion of the market. The corporate form was originally just a method of contract between businesses, as in "This is how the deal will work. Only the assets of the firm will be available for debt, etc. Do you accept those terms?" But corporate law is instead extremely regulated by the federal government, which extends these entitities all sorts of protections. So the issue is quite complicated. Any solutions would require unbundling the issues, & I'd rather listen to a Wild Heart Tour soundboard!

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

We always were under the theory of ED - the Sup. Ct. Ruling just sort of expanded it, but cases had already been occuring for awhile where the state took property and used it in a way that benefitted private companies. A good example of this is a highway, which serves the public, but is built by a private contractor. Many so called necessary highways or expansion of roads have been done to line pockets. So, while I abhor the recent USSC decision, it is nothing that new in the big scheme of things.

It certainly isn't new -- eminent domain was argued over during the early days of the Republic, even.

It's all about due process of law, & whether that due process is being distorted. Plus, the existence of eminent domain doesn't obviate the importance of property & civil rights. It just demonstrates -- to those few who still need it demonstrated to them -- that the propensity of government, any government, is to take more, not less, even though the purpose of government is to protect & ensure individual rights to life, liberty & property.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

They are the few. I can't believe you would argue against the elite rich controlling almost everything and keeping the poor down to continue it.

I am not arguing against that per se - though it is not all of the rich.

I am arguing that the rich in this country historically have been extremely generous by giving entire medical systems a la the Vanderbilts.