It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democracy dying at the hands of the Left - The Welfare State

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: freakjive

What I don't understand is how a dependent poverty stricken society is a benefit to a nation.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
"As more baby boomers retire, and as Obamacare comes fully online — with its expanded Medicaid rolls and federally subsidized health -"

As baby boomers retire, their jobs need to be filled. And as Obamacare comes online and a new system is implemented and there is an increase in demand in the healthcare industry because of aging baby boomers and hopefully still to be expanded health care (if the system can improve).

In fact, unemployment right now is currently the lowest it has been since the 2008 recession happened.

It's not a 'welfare' state that ruins economies, its the mismanagement of capitalism that in itself ruins capitalism. Capitalism is a means in itself and naturally will turn into socialism just as feudalism transformed into capitalism over time. Perhaps when socialism outruns its course it will gradually turn in anarchism, a system of being truly free after we learn the lessons of cooperation that socialism can potentially have.

However, I feel I should point out that democracy and capitalism are not synonymous. Capitalism depends on a minimal element of freedom of choice, but choice can still exist in socialism, it just more collective.
I would like to introduce you to the studies of the economist who has been quite popular lately, Thomas Piketty.

Here are three quick links about his recent work that is all the rage in economic academia the past few months:

Quartz article
New Yorker article
New York Times article
Link to his book through Harvard University Press

Through his recent research, as well as a wealth of articles by Joseph Stiglitz and even a specific book, The Price of Inequality - ( Free downloadable PDF link here ) it can really be shown that capitalism on its own is not the 'freedom' it's cracked up to be.

I'll leave my post with a quote by one of the most predominate economist of the 20th century and still today, John Maynard Keynes, "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wicked of men will do the most wicked of things for the greatest good of everyone."


edit on 21-4-2014 by Ouroboros21 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2014 by Ouroboros21 because: typos

edit on 21-4-2014 by Ouroboros21 because: I really hate typos

edit on 21-4-2014 by Ouroboros21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” -Malcolm X


Quit this left-right nonsense. Quit listening to politicians...politicians that are all on the same team....a team which you will NEVER be a member.

I will never understand how people still fall for this divisive rhetoric. I guess the best way to win the minds of low people is to appeal to their baser side.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: freakjive

Democracy dying in the hands of the what?



I think you meant Democrats, not Left. Not that it validates your complaint any. I guess it all depends on how you prefer your fascism... with or without food, with or without religion, with or without freedom to marry whomever you choose and with or without freedom of choice over your own body.

Don't mistake those as choices between Right and Left. They're choices between a brutal master and a less brutal master.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: freakjive

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
a reply to: freakjive

What I find pretty much odd (and you and similar people with the same opinion should be ashamed) that you almost make it sound like those people who are out of work are criminals or doing something unlawful. Your hate/anger is obvious.


I'm not ashamed in the least bit. I do have a lot of hate and anger but you're misdirecting where it's placed. Sure, I don't like the ones who have the capability to work and do not (what I labeled "blood suckers"). But I HATE the SYSTEM. I hate the fact that our big government is making it easier for people to live on the backs of the ones who will do anything to maintain an income and do their share.

It's not something that I have seen on TV or heard about. It's something I live with everyday...we all do.


How is it easy? And lets be real, the amount of people who are blood suckers is tiny. Most goverment aid goes to seniors in social security which they payed into, medicade and medicare which people payed into, disabled people and vets and of course people who work and get food stamps, WIC etc. This fantasy that a bunch of people are living high on the hog sitting at home watching TV does not reflect reality in the least.

What is true is the companies no longer pay a living wage nor provide benfits all the quest for greater profits. The government has to pick up that slack or working people will literaly be hungry on the streets. Perhaps the answers is companies getting a big tax increase with the option for lower taxes if they provide a living wage and basic benefits.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Exactly, push companies to provide these things willingly instead of mandating them. Mandating health care, living wages, benefits, etc just ends up having the costs passed onto the consumers which ends up defeating the purpose of giving those things in the first place. If you offer tax breaks to companies to reinvest back into their companies, especially towards labor, then the wage gap would probably evaporate overnight.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: doobydoll
Living in civilized society costs tax money to ensure that no citizen falls below acceptable living standards.

Take away poor people's assistance and your society will end up with millions starving and homeless, a third world society - and you'll STILL be paying taxes. And those who are hungry will simply TAKE what they need, from those who have anything to take.

So don't moan when you get what you wish for.


Ouch. All the sharper for the fact that you are probably right. Should we go down that path, we will swiftly discover how little difference there is between us and the animals catching the crumbs from our tables.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
And exactly why does the article you reference conveniently leave out all public sector employees, of which there are many? Sounds like another partisan bs article. And I have yet to notice the impact of my tax contributions to help others having a negative impact on my quality of life... a reply to: freakjive



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: freakjive

What I don't understand is how a dependent poverty stricken society is a benefit to a nation.


Who do you think makes up a majority of the military? The war machine always needs cannon fodder.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: freakjive

What I don't understand is how a dependent poverty stricken society is a benefit to a nation.


Who do you think makes up a majority of the military? The war machine always needs cannon fodder.


Don't forget to add cheap labor in there with cannon fodder.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's kind of odd you would allow "tax breaks" to companies which would raise their workers pay and increase their benefits package.
These items are already covered in the current tax codes. It's called "part of doing business".
Companies only pay taxes, if any, or the profits which they make each year. Employee pay and benefits are taken out before they even start to figure profits, so why would they need more incentive. If you do a little research, you will find that the tax rates were much higher during the 1950's; the same time period which saw the fastest growth in American manufacturing history.
Now all everyone wants to do is lower taxes to increase profits and stimulate growth.

HOW ? I don't think it works that way. It will only serve to increase the boss's pay.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Meanwhile conservatives in the legislature and Supreme Court keep advancing corporate rights. Equating money with speech, refusing to enact laws on the elite money machines like banks and insurance companies (regulation), restricting voter rights and generally PRIVATIZING democracy (like they want to do with everything else).

But again, tell us DEMOCRACY is being killed by the left, thanks god the right is preserving it



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: freakjive

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
a reply to: freakjive


What is true is the companies no longer pay a living wage nor provide benfits all the quest for greater profits. The government has to pick up that slack or working people will literaly be hungry on the streets. Perhaps the answers is companies getting a big tax increase with the option for lower taxes if they provide a living wage and basic benefits.


Well then reduce the minimum wages!



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010


So it boils down to voting for people who will let you starve or people will not let you starve. How do you think the vote will go?


Sarc/on, No.....it boils down to who will let you have cable tv/internet, cell service or three, a big screen television and starve. Sarc/off

I see this as a national tragedy instead of a left/right issue. 1. Inflation policy which only benefits growing tax rolls and debt leech corporations has increased costs of SSI beneficiaries well beyond any contributions they made to the system making deficits a sure thing.

2. Off shoring our skilled technical and manufacturing jobs for a clamoring public that always buys lowest cost foreign made crap from places like "China Mart" corporations maximizing profit in the short term over the long term health of the consumer economy and a government full of sycophants looking to win the next election by hook or crook, usually crook.

3. The "financialation" of everything down to "payment" rather than cost has inflated everything from housing, education and vehicle costs beyond what most families can reasonably afford has the basic growth drivers of the economy stymied as consumers find they have fewer and fewer dollars free of debt payments.

I know what I'm saying is somewhat simplistic but I believe it covers the basics.

Unfortunately I see no way out of the trap due to general attitude and acceptance by a majority who has a big dose of normalcy bias that will indefinitely elect those who will perpetuate the current crisis rather than those who would do what is needed to cure the situation.

What's needed is on shoring our jobs, close borders, tariffs on foreign goods, stop the fed from inflating the currency, deflate the currency, tighten easy credit, allow bankruptcy for student debt, have medical industry exposed to Sherman Act type corporate laws ending price fixing and collusion.

Those are just off top of mind, I'm sure there are hundreds more to be done.

Problem is the public will not accept the pain and short term turmoil required to reset the economy. That we are 6 plus years into near total collapse and nothing has really changed says it all to me.

For those that can - be prepared as this beast will fall.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's kind of odd you would allow "tax breaks" to companies which would raise their workers pay and increase their benefits package.
These items are already covered in the current tax codes. It's called "part of doing business".
Companies only pay taxes, if any, or the profits which they make each year. Employee pay and benefits are taken out before they even start to figure profits, so why would they need more incentive. If you do a little research, you will find that the tax rates were much higher during the 1950's; the same time period which saw the fastest growth in American manufacturing history.
Now all everyone wants to do is lower taxes to increase profits and stimulate growth.

HOW ? I don't think it works that way. It will only serve to increase the boss's pay.



Coming from another angle, stockholder driven short term profits seem to be an incentive for the corporations to make decisions not clearly in their or anybody else's long term interest.

Maybe the tax ought to be heavier on short term stock gains, neutral on mid term stock gains and advantageous on long term gains thereby giving the executive class a spur to do things on a 5 to 10 year outlook rather than next months profits.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: spurgeonatorsrevenge
Meanwhile conservatives in the legislature and Supreme Court keep advancing corporate rights. Equating money with speech, refusing to enact laws on the elite money machines like banks and insurance companies (regulation), restricting voter rights and generally PRIVATIZING democracy (like they want to do with everything else).

But again, tell us DEMOCRACY is being killed by the left, thanks god the right is preserving it


But the Progressive-Democrats had control of both Chambers in the U.S. Congress for all of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

How come no fixie?

How come fix no work?




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

Are you talking about this?

Revisiting the High Tax Rates of the 1950s


In the 1950s, very few people paid the very high income-tax rates aimed at the wealthiest.

Claims that wealthy people paid more taxes rest instead on the assumption that the rich, as stock owners, bore the entire burden of higher corporate taxes of that era. There are good reasons to doubt this assumption about corporate taxes.

Even if we leave these assumptions unchallenged, the economy of the 1950s was so different from our own that its tax structure cannot be reproduced today.

The most plausible viable paths to higher taxes in today’s economy would render the tax system less fair, not more so.


Maybe YOU should do the research you are suggesting of me, since your concept of how the tax code worked 50 - 60 years ago is flawed.

If you read the post that I was responding to, you'd notice that part of MrSpad's idea was to raise taxes for companies and corporations THEN provide the tax benefit for doing things like insourcing, providing benefits, livable wages, etc. And no this won't benefit the boss's income, because if the company isn't providing the livable wage to everyone at the company, they don't get the tax break.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

THe dividends paid to shareholders are taken from the profits of a corporation after taxes and all other expenses.
It would seem we are talking about two diffenent things.
I am speaking of the taxes placed directly upon companies after expenditures are taken out. This is before any shareholder dividends are paid.
The shareholders still pay taxes on their individual incomes from whatever income sources there may be.
Of course, if they can find and afford good accountants, they will always pay the lowest taxes which are affored to them.
But, like I said, two different sets of numbers entirely.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: teamcommander

Well then your account of high taxes is wrong, because the claim for such high taxes (as explained by my link) is derived from combining the individual tax rate with the corporate tax rate, which is assumed to have been paid by the rich since they were the primary stock holders. You should read the link I provided.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
So of all the things we have wrong in this country, welfare will be it's downfall?

Hardly.

Welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on wars, corporate subsidies and the protection of the corporate state.

Why is it considered "free-market principles" to allow a big business to pay no taxes, yet if an individual that cannot find a job, or at least a well-paying job, get's a little help....they are the downfall of society.

It's quite obvious that our overall mindset is way off and we need to get back to basics of what is right, just and moral.
edit on 21-4-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join