40 posts
Ok. I mean Capiltalism today, not when the Constitution was written. ;D
I saw a group talking about todays system of government. Just wanting your thoughts. They made great points of our capitalist system needing change, if not discarded. Discarded.... as in a new system put in place based on todays economic condition. They discussed the possible need for ever changing systems as well. Why? Well, about every 8 or so years we have a downward spiral. Everything goes good for a time, then boom. The bottom falls out.
Now this has happened to Democratic and Republican Presidents so the literal party's themselves and their achievements both seem to lead to this situation, kinda. Clinton and Bush, for example. Reagan to a degree.
I just was wondering what your thoughts were, especially Charger and Tripper, Binge..... hell all your thoughts.
Except DTR's. ;D ;D Just kidding DTR!!! :)
Yes, it should be disgarded. Now go home, put on your party uniform and give me all your money Comrade! ;)
You mean my jeans, t-shirt, and ball cap? ;D
There's no question that the system is a mess. But more disturbing to me than the cycle of boom and bust is the fact that the uber-rich never, ever get affected by it. They make their money when times are good, and when they are shitty. You never, ever hear about a bunch of unemployed rich people fighting for the one rich dude's job, while all the poor slobs smile and nod and say, "there's nothing wrong at all."
Should the system be discarded? No. Should it be fairer? Yes. Should we tax the fuck out of those assholes? Yep.
Just to head off the spelling police, it's "capitalism"...
charger — Jan 16, 2012Just to head off the spelling police, it's "capitalism"...
I let him slide on that one, the overall premise was stupid enough. ;)
What's stupid about it? In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are starting to notice how the 99%, call them what you will, get shit on at every turn, and it all serves to make the rich that much richer. Nobody's arguing for socialism, but I do believe, strongly, that no one out there has any reason to cry about their 35% tax rate when they are making $1 mil, or $100 mil, a year. How high should their taxes be? I say 50%. Yes, I've heard the argument that it will just lead to
a) rich people not hiring
b) rich people moving out of the country
c) rich people not innovating
And to that I say...
a) they're no hiring anyway, just making more money than ever
b) good riddance, though I think this is an empty threat, as there's really nowhere better to be a capitalist
c) rich people for the most part don't innovate, they steal, co-opt, or hire innovators
CraigBert — Jan 16, 2012[quote author=charger link=1326503503/0#4 date=1326741852]Just to head off the spelling police, it's "capitalism"...
I let him slide on that one, the overall premise was stupid enough. ;)
Not only are you not funny, your insane. Do you live in America? If so, for how long? Lol. Get with the program funny boy. :D
I kinda think this. this is a little off topic but bare with me.
I think first, our politics need to change. I think we should not limit a Presidents time in office. I think we should continue to have elections every 4 years and whoever wins wins. If the President is doing a good job, he'll win and continue, if he's not, he's out.
But here is the big change. Every 4 years we have an election, we elect the entire congress and senate as well. However, we limit their service to a max of 2 terms, 8 years.
In my opinion, this would speed up progress and get rid of these lifers in congress and the senate who get nothing done. Hopefully, it would help allow the elected President to do what we elected him to do. As it is, he can't do shit but send us to war whether we like it or not.
I think we should bring our jobs back home. All the manufacturing, bring it home. Cut the hell out of imports without any give a damn about exports.
Now, we bailed out Chrysler and GM, so...to fix some of their shit, we eliminate the union and start over. We build good shit like we can and hire competent people to run the company. It's take the deal, or close the doors and someone else will start a car company, their choice.
Continue to do this type thing to get us back on track. Cut all money to other countries, all of it.
Come up with a flat tax. A little risky because the flat tax can rise just like any other tax, but it's easier to keep track of and easier to file. Less expense to collect, smaller government.
Then realize that economic conditions changing as often as they do, needs a system that is ever changing as well. We can't live in a world thinking that capitalism, like it was in the 20's, will work today. Capitalism is fine, it just needs to be tweaked to perform at it's best. Like the congress and senate. :D Or a computer. ;D
Now, go vote for Ron Paul and send those bastards a message. ;D
I don't like a flat tax... it's regressive. 20% to someone making 15k a year is very painful, whereas to someone making $5million it's not.
Good point. :)
But that's easy to fix.
0-$20k....5%
21k to 50k....10%
50k to 100k.....15%
101k to 200k....20%
201k to 500k.....25%
501k to 999k.....35%
1mil plus..........45%
How's that?
I think the only sensible economy is a mixed one, with socialist and capitalist elements. And that's what we have, when we have appropriate regulations and laws, and we enforce them.
America's version of capitalism is great so long as the rules of the system work. In the past 30 years, the rich have paid to rewrite the regulatory policies of this country while at the same time shaping the minds of the American people through a coordinated disinformation campaign about the reality of truly free market capitalism. They've ruined the system to enrich the few, and destroyed our economy in the interest of profits over people.
I don't see it getting better until the populists in this country start winning some battles and getting the corporatists out of power (and that includes people like President Obama). But the populists have no money and no influence, and until the laws change to level the free-speech playing field, shit's never going to change.
But hey, I don't think anyone really expected that the majority of Americans would get so fucked in 30 years, so maybe we can turn it around in the next 30. I'm not holding my breath.
Tripper
Hookbender — Jan 17, 2012Good point. :)
But that's easy to fix.
0-$20k....5%
21k to 50k....10%
50k to 100k.....15%
101k to 200k....20%
201k to 500k.....25%
501k to 999k.....35%
1mil plus..........45%
How's that?
Yeah, I could go for that, except the bottom 2 brackets... those people make under 40k a year, taxing them would be insane. But that's not a flat tax, that's progressive...
This should be the #1 goal of the "occupy" movement. To remove private money from the political campaign system entirely. The way SuperPACs are allowed to work is just beyond all comprehension to me.
I see your point Charger. Why not say they pay $500 a year in tax. IMO, their has to be some incentive and some built in reward for making it to the next bracket. Hopefully, only a few people would be happy making that little money and have the desire to keep trying to make more. Everyone should pay taxes. Those people making $20k for example may need to consider a second job if possible.
I also think this bracket in my example should be changed with the economy as well. For example, taxes may need to be higher when the economy is good and lower if it were to get bad.
One other key to our economic conditions and the effect it has on all people is the importance of teaching money management skills to kids from the first grade through college. I think this is in the top 5 among the faiures of our education system. The lack of simply teaching basic and advanced money management skills. One of the most important things kids need to learn about at early ages imo.
Hookbender — Jan 19, 2012 I also think this bracket in my example should be changed with the economy as well. For example, taxes may need to be higher when the economy is good and lower if it were to get bad.
Wow, you ARE a dreamer! This tune has been used a lot, but only to get MORE taxes. Ask Charger how much he pays in sales tax now, most of the increases were for "temporary emergencies" that were never removed.
Yeah, it is a dream to imagine a system that is fair. And, that is a damn shame in itself.
But if you read the rest of my dream, you'd see that I'd prefer a system that works, to start with. Go read the entire thread now.
At least people are discussing fixes in our system. May never come to light but at least interest is there.
This is what's interesting about capitalism. There is no "guarantee" in it for the rich--keep fucking the people and two things happen, 1) there's no one left to buy your stuff, and 2) revolution occurs.
Right now, people who are not seeing massive wealth accumulate for them are starting to realize that the system is fixed, that upward mobility is 95% crap, and that the rich keep getting richer no matter what bad shit happens in the economy. Essentially, capitalism works well for the rich right now, but the more they starve the poor of cash--those who spend all their money buying their crap, like, oh, widgets made in China or--say--HOUSES--and the less they actually have to spend, the harder it will get for the rich to operate as they do.
I think the next correction should be to never bail out another moneyindustry. The banking bailout was necessary IF we wanted to keep the system working, and it seems we did. But imagine if the banks had started to crumble in these "occupy" times. Would we still bail them out? Clearly that bailout mostly made money for rich people, which is nothing new by the way. The Chrysler/GM bailouts to me were much more succesful, because they worked, and the beneficiaries were, by and large, a whole lot of middle class workers. People got to keep decent-paid (not overpaid) jobs, and a couple of companies got to keep operating. It's a stark contrast to the banking bailouts, where a whole lotta rich people got richer, the bonuses kept flowing, a whole lotta rich people never felt an ounce of pain for their complicity in the disastrous financial downturn, and the poor still got fucked.
as it turned out, the bailout was necessary to keep their system working.
Just to throw a monkey wrench in the tax code...I think it would be cool to have a variety of taxes that I could personally invest my money in. For example.....perhaps I don't give two shits about military's enormous budget that allows for $500 toilet bowls seats and what not, instead I can throw my tax money into say education, or community works projects, etc. Then you couldn't really have motherfuckers just arbitrarily putting YOUR money in what they fuck they want. You also get a much better idea of what American people give a fuck about as we would be in control of where our money went. That's fucking democracy bitches.
We've all dreamed of that for years, FB.
I don't think theirs any way that would work. We have to have a properly funded military, for example. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a vote on how that military is used. Instead of the President being able to start stupid wars, have that go to a vote. That would mean the people choose how that military is used. Maybe that would keep people informed about the real reasons it's considered in the first place. (A war)
With all the politically disconnected people in the world, just think how many stupid decisions would be made on where the tax money goes. Not only that, I would imagine that we would have a country that would be filled with politicians trying to persuade people everyday to fund a certain part of government.
Hookbender — Jan 21, 2012I don't think theirs any way that would work. We have to have a properly funded military, for example. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a vote on how that military is used. Instead of the President being able to start stupid wars, have that go to a vote. That would mean the people choose how that military is used. Maybe that would keep people informed about the real reasons it's considered in the first place. (A war)
With all the politically disconnected people in the world, just think how many stupid decisions would be made on where the tax money goes. Not only that, I would imagine that we would have a country that would be filled with politicians trying to persuade people everyday to fund a certain part of government.
Never fear. There are enough rednecks and warmongers to support the military. Hell the NRA alone would make it it's pet project.
I think it would work great....except for those poor louts that like shit no one else cares about.
There should be NO loop holes. there are NO "except if" things. You pay what is required and dispense it according to what you believe in. The tax system would be highly personal.
When the government is limited by the people on what it can spend and on what it can spend it on then they can't go bail out failing companies.
I for one wouldn't put much if any money in foriegn aid since I'd rather OUR government help OUR people first and then help the other poor bastards. But that's just me. Perhaps others much more liberal than myself would donate to saving trees or saving people in other parts of the world.
The point is that I can sleep much better at night knowing MY money is being wasted on shit. YMMV....you might like to waste your tax money on shit. ;)
But there are loop holes in your idea. Just the statement you made, fund whatever you believe in, is a admitted loop hole. And, people aren't intelligent enough to make those decisions. Most can't handle their own personal money, much less have an understanding on what is required for basic government to function.
And lets say education is funded to the max. Why do you think government would spend the money responsibly? They never have. They can't. Their will still be a huge waste of money. I think the ability to hold the spenders responsible for their actions is a much better option. And cutting the amount they can spend will hopefully make them think a little before they sign on to stupid shit, like spending billions of dollars to study the effects of pot on the lungs. This was actually done. Now, I guess it was to easy to look a previous studies on pot like from, say Jamaica, where people have smoked pot all their life and there are no lung cancer deaths or reports of lung cancer period from anyone, ever. They would have been better off taking the government to court for locking up people for using a pretty much harmless drug but allowing people to smoke cigs and drink and kill themselves and others daily. I think that would be money well spent. Not to mention the savings to government for letting all those terrible pot smokers go free. :D
Hookbender — Jan 23, 2012But there are loop holes in your idea. Just the statement you made, fund whatever you believe in, is a admitted loop hole. And, people aren't intelligent enough to make those decisions. Most can't handle their own personal money, much less have an understanding on what is required for basic government to function.
And lets say education is funded to the max. Why do you think government would spend the money responsibly? They never have. They can't. Their will still be a huge waste of money. I think the ability to hold the spenders responsible for their actions is a much better option. And cutting the amount they can spend will hopefully make them think a little before they sign on to stupid shit, like spending billions of dollars to study the effects of pot on the lungs. This was actually done. Now, I guess it was to easy to look a previous studies on pot like from, say Jamaica, where people have smoked pot all their life and there are no lung cancer deaths or reports of lung cancer period from anyone, ever. They would have been better off taking the government to court for locking up people for using a pretty much harmless drug but allowing people to smoke cigs and drink and kill themselves and others daily. I think that would be money well spent. Not to mention the savings to government for letting all those terrible pot smokers go free. :D
I've made a few general statements. It's not like a sat down and wrote an iron clad law. ::)
At any rate you say there would be a WASTE of money. I like to think of it as a surplus of money in things that people give a shit about. It's not like we have to spend every dime every year immediately. Spend what is needed. With people getting to pick what they want to spend it on at least people get to limit the stupid shit and finally allow things that are important to take off.
Have you read about some of the retarded shit the military spend billions on every year? Do some research in that department and it will make your eyes bleed. As it is there is plenty of WASTE. Because as it is everything is a money grab.
The second you say government money everything becomes a money grab. For example, if I want to buy a CD player for my room at school I have to buy it off a bid list. The CD player I have to buy is shit and marked up sometimes 500%+. I could have gone to Wal-mart and got way better for way cheaper. But it's a money grab.
I think they should do away with bid lists. But the issue is that since it's government money the governemtn wants to "ensure" that the money being spent is on quality stuff. But it rarely is quality stuff.
At any rate, if they aren't going to get off the fucking bid list....at least with the surplus of money in education I can afford to buy the shit I need for a classroom. As it stands, I have to fund raise for my class like a mad man so I can get the things that were never bought that I need to teach my classes. The money I get every year to run a classrooom is a joke.
I get $250 for art and $250 for music. I have at least 22 kids in each class and upwards of around 30 in a couple. You know what I can buy for a music class on a budget of $250 per yer.....which by the way I cannot carry over till the next year. It's use it or lose it. You're a musician. $250 doesn't buy dick in the music world....especially when you are buying for a classroom. Some of the instruments I need can push $600.
It's a fucking joke and education is always the first damn thing cut.
I know Americans are stupid. But in the end...government will be limited forcabley and won't be able to spend crazy money if no one gives two shit about their crazy spending habits.
One thing's for sure... Mitt Romney is winning in the game of capitalism... making 21 mil a year, and paying 14.5%...
Fender
Ok. Your saying government could and will have a surplus in education under your theory....and with this surplus, Fender will be able to buy 2 instruments, for example, with this surplus. And, for some reason, using your system, government will somehow spend money wisely enough to have a surplus.??? This is the same government that your cd player cost $500 and the government pays it, no question, right? Just askin. The same government that says we should spend $800billion dollars and roads and infrastructure, spends every penny, only 30mil actually went to the purpose of the money. That government? (#'s may be off, but you get my point)
charger — Jan 24, 2012One thing's for sure... Mitt Romney is winning in the game of capitalism... making 21 mil a year, and paying 14.5%...
Well, lots of money were at risk to make that too. What if he lost that much money on investments and was paying 40 %. I'd say you'd be bitching about that too.
But he's doing what is legal. And according to our laws, that's his fair share. So, we really need to address that regardless of Romney. (the laws and tax rates)
Hookbender — Jan 25, 2012Fender
Ok. Your saying government could and will have a surplus in education under your theory....and with this surplus, Fender will be able to buy 2 instruments, for example, with this surplus. And, for some reason, using your system, government will somehow spend money wisely enough to have a surplus.??? This is the same government that your cd player cost $500 and the government pays it, no question, right? Just askin. The same government that says we should spend $800billion dollars and roads and infrastructure, spends every penny, only 30mil actually went to the purpose of the money. That government? (#'s may be off, but you get my point)
You've already fucked up. Who spends the money? I spend the money. The government currently LIMITS the money to a degree that schools can get. BUt I get to spend it. Right now there is nothing to spend or so little it might as well be nothing.
School systems spend the money. Where the government screws things up is bid lists. Not EVERYTHING that I spend money on has to be bid out. For example the vast majority of ALL money spent in schools is spent on employee salaries and insurance (no money grab here teachers and classified staff don't make shit, but that's OK I'm not bitching about salaries). That's probably around 80% of the money that gets spent in EVERY school system.
So things like learning material such as books, science equipment, globes, maps, anything you would physically use, computers, whiteboards, etc. All that shit comes from the piddley 20% left over. That's where school are really taking it in the ass. It's one thing not to be able to pay teachers what they are worth. We are humans and we are conditioned to thrive in that environment. But it really sucks when you don't have the money to get your class the things they need for a better learning situation.
I'm on your side. I want more money for education just as you do. but that surplus won't ever exist as long as the government is involved. That money won't ever make to the education fund.
Tell ya a dumb thing the government recently did. They roled out this competion between states to change education. IF you were successfull you got money. We were promised the money would go into making the schools better.
Kentucky won 17 million bucks. 50% of it went straight to the state government off the top. For what? Probably to balance a budget that hasn't been balanced for 5 years.
The $8.5 mil left over went to a fucking professional development so that we can UNDERSTAND some of the new laws better.
All that work for literally nothing. Money that won't really beneift the school system in anyway. It is a fucking disgrace.
The last thing the government wants is to have a people that are educated. That would be the governments worst enemy. They would get away with far less shit and 90% would get voted out immediately. ;D
Damn....Fender,
You mentioned teaching music. Do you teach Trombone? If you do, I have one and if you can use it I'll donate to you if you pay the shipping. Not donate it to the school for any gain, I meant give it to you. Its a Bundy I think and not the best, but perfect for a beginner to learn on. Just let me know and I'll dig it out of the attic. It was mine in middle school. ;D
That's true, education is the enemy of the current congress. However, lack of education is also the enemy of capitalism... that's the part they don't get. The less educated we are as a society, the less we earn, and the less of their crap we can buy, and the less money they make. That's the road we're headed down...
.....and the larger government grows the more power they have over the people, and the more people depend on government, the more government becomes a huge company, and with our government, the more they screw the less wealthy, or shall I say, the least powerful with less voice.
So, my theory is, the government isn't shit without people depending on it. I'll explain. In theory, lets say 50% of people are dependent on government at a given date, say today.... well, that allows more money to come into government and therefore government grows and does more. Now if 25% of people are dependent on government on Feb 1st because people were employed or whatever, then government can't function the same as it once did and has to cut back. (get smaller) Then, the people have more say on what goes on. And then, people care less about what a person does in the bedroom and more about what they do at the office. (except for Clinton.)
Hookbender — Jan 26, 2012Damn....Fender,
You mentioned teaching music. Do you teach Trombone? If you do, I have one and if you can use it I'll donate to you if you pay the shipping. Not donate it to the school for any gain, I meant give it to you. Its a Bundy I think and not the best, but perfect for a beginner to learn on. Just let me know and I'll dig it out of the attic. It was mine in middle school. ;D
I'm not a band teacher. I mostly have percussion instruments, as most are generally cheap and easy to play. I have orff instruments, expensive and gained over years and not nearly enough.
Currently teaching the older ones guitar on anything they bring from home and my nine beaters.
Hookbender — Jan 26, 2012The last thing the government wants is to have a people that are educated. That would be the governments worst enemy. They would get away with far less shit and 90% would get voted out immediately. ;D
That could be THE most accurate thing I've ever seen you post here HB! :)
I wish you could equal my intelligence. ;D ;D
And humor. :D
Hookbender — Jan 27, 2012I wish you could equal my intelligence. ;D ;D
And humor. :D
Sorry, but I'm not cutting my head off for anyone. ;)