The Forgotten Man

[rigney]

I'm probably as controversial or more so than anyone I've met on this forum. Perhaps I have a death wish to be thrown off? Not sure? Question is, why such disagreement and controversy? All of us have our druthers! Me?, I would much rather be rich than poor. A lot more healthy as opposed to being ill. A lot smarter? Well!

The internet logon below will give you something to think about for the rest of your life. I honestly don't believe Jon was painting anything to disparage our present day leader, but morally; something politicians have been destroying for years. So, when history judges us, what will they think of our successes?

It's easy for a man who has absolutely nothing, to give away all that he has. It's a different thing for a person who has worked a lifetime to obtain comfort of some degree, only to be expected, or even demanded to give it all away. You be the judge?

 

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/jon-mcnaughton-the-forgotten-man/

Edited October 3, 2010 by rigney

[Marat]

I am not sure how you could argue that uncontrolled government spending is unconstitutional, especially after progressive income taxation was permitted by a constitutional amendment.

 

In any case, this thread seems to belong more properly to the political forum.

[rigney]

I am not sure how you could argue that uncontrolled government spending is unconstitutional, especially after progressive income taxation was permitted by a constitutional amendment.

 

In any case, this thread seems to belong more properly to the political forum.

 

This post may well belong in the political forum. But personally, I think it's a shame that politicians and not builders and workers have put us in the position that we are today. Why are we having to spend ten to twelve trillion dollars over the next few years to balance our national debt? Why is such a debt there anyway? Where did it come from? And how is it going to be paid? Why such expenses? Honestly, I believe our country has become politically and "morally" bankrupt.

Edited October 3, 2010 by rigney

[Marat]

The real question has to be, why is there such a large debt and what is the best remedy for it? While it is generally assumed that the problem is excessive government expenditure, in fact the government's share of the GNP in the U.S. is lower, not higher, than it is in most countries. The real answer may well be that it is the long history of resistance to higher taxes in the U.S., and the solution may be for some brave politician to point out that the real choice is between higher taxes and increasing public debt, rather than cutting programs even more and leaving tax rates where they now are.

 

If you do an inventory of all the wealth available from all sources in America, it is amazing how much wealth has been concentrated among the small group of rich people by the long history of low and minimally progressive taxes in the U.S. The one interesting idea from the abortive Presidential bid of Donald Trump a few years ago was his suggestion that a one-time 14% tax on all private bank account holdings worth more than $1 million in the U.S. would suffice to pay off the total local, state, and national debt of the whole country. But for some strange reason, rather than raising taxes on the tiny group of extremely wealthy people, the great mass of the American population would prefer to address the public debt problem by cutting government expenditures and having their public libraries, public schools, public universities, highways, bridges, and fire and police protection services deteriorate. If Marxism hadn't been disproven, that type of thinking would be called the alienation of the poor and working class from their true interests by the ideological hegemony imposed by the ruling class.

[rigney]

The real question has to be, why is there such a large debt and what is the best remedy for it? While it is generally assumed that the problem is excessive government expenditure, in fact the government's share of the GNP in the U.S. is lower, not higher, than it is in most countries. The real answer may well be that it is the long history of resistance to higher taxes in the U.S., and the solution may be for some brave politician to point out that the real choice is between higher taxes and increasing public debt, rather than cutting programs even more and leaving tax rates where they now are.

 

If you do an inventory of all the wealth available from all sources in America, it is amazing how much wealth has been concentrated among the small group of rich people by the long history of low and minimally progressive taxes in the U.S. The one interesting idea from the abortive Presidential bid of Donald Trump a few years ago was his suggestion that a one-time 14% tax on all private bank account holdings worth more than $1 million in the U.S. would suffice to pay off the total local, state, and national debt of the whole country. But for some strange reason, rather than raising taxes on the tiny group of extremely wealthy people, the great mass of the American population would prefer to address the public debt problem by cutting government expenditures and having their public libraries, public schools, public universities, highways, bridges, and fire and police protection services deteriorate. If Marxism hadn't been disproven, that type of thinking would be called the alienation of the poor and working class from their true interests by the ideological hegemony imposed by the ruling class.

 

Wish I could refute your well intended argument, but I can't. I'm neither a politician, an economist or wealthy. But I wouldn't mind giving up 20% of what I have, if everyone else would do the same, including those having what they consider, "nothing". But as I said earlier, it's easy to commit everything to a cause, if you have nothing to give. But a person with wealth doesn't necessarily feel as you or I might, and I can't blame them. Why work a lifetime to accomplish something, and simply have to give it away?

Edited October 3, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Interesting picture, but its missing the the other presidents using the constitution as toilet paper too.

[rigney]

Interesting picture, but its missing the the other presidents using the constitution as toilet paper too.

 

You are absolutely right! No one can, nor should they remotely think that President Obama or his immediate predecessor are entirely to blame for the mess this country is in today. There are a lot of faces in that crowd and many other politicians who's feet would cover that "Charter" even if it were the size of a dozen football fields. And that applies to both sides of the aisle. How did Jesus put it: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Edited October 4, 2010 by rigney

[Edtharan]

Wish I could refute your well intended argument, but I can't. I'm neither a politician, an economist or wealthy. But I wouldn't mind giving up 20% of what I have, if everyone else would do the same, including those having what they consider, "nothing".

 

For any social system to work (and not just human social systems), there are two "rules" that need to be in place:

 

1) The social system must support the members of that society.

2) The members of that society must support the social system.

 

It is this reciprocal relationship that allows socities to exist and function. Taxation is just an economic contribution to support the social system, and there are other ways to contribute. So, even the person with "nothing" (in terms of economy) can still have plenty to contribute.

 

In fact, if you look at it, money is not what is contribueted, but it actually the reward for contributing. What people contribut is their time and effort (work).

[rigney]

For any social system to work (and not just human social systems), there are two "rules" that need to be in place:

 

1) The social system must support the members of that society.

2) The members of that society must support the social system.

 

It is this reciprocal relationship that allows socities to exist and function. Taxation is just an economic contribution to support the social system, and there are other ways to contribute. So, even the person with "nothing" (in terms of economy) can still have plenty to contribute.

 

In fact, if you look at it, money is not what is contribueted, but is actually the reward for contributing. What people contribut is their time and effort (work).

 

I don't believe it could be explained better. If I had absolutely nothing and could find no work at all, I would sweep the sidewalk in front of your store, or the pathway up to your home daily until you noticed, and paid me with at least a sandwich and a bowl of soup. Since Sak's 5th Avenue has never impressed me, I could find a good "hand me down" shop in practically any town or city.