• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eric Cantor loses primary

Trakar said:
Actually, while that may be a form of socialism, depending upon how the economic system is structured, but it is not, to my understanding Marxism.
Marxism is about having strict classes and how these classes interact with each other. Marxism is a worldview and method of societal analysis which interprets these interactions in terms of the interactions of strongly held/imposed class-systems.
Click to expand...

In other words, conservatives STILL have no bloody idea what Marxism actually is. Not that it keeps them from blathering on about it...
 
Francesca R said:
The point of the July 2012 speech was not "Look, we need infrastructure, K?" it was being used as a justification for more progressive tax, which it does not actually justify.
Click to expand...

Justification? The only justification is that they have the money and the country needs the money. Therefore they will have to part with some of their money and I couldn't care less about if they get more value from it or not.
 
BenBurch said:
Justification? The only justification is that they have the money and the country needs the money. Therefore they will have to part with some of their money and I couldn't care less about if they get more value from it or not.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your candour--really.

(Please don't ever call yourself "liberal" though--I think I would laugh too hard)
 
Francesca R said:
Thank you for your candour--really.

(Please don't ever call yourself "liberal" though--I think I would laugh too hard)
Click to expand...

Taxation has never been about value received.

It is about funding the operations of the government.

Doesn't matter if you are paying tribute to the Athenian League, paying your harvest labor obligation to the Manor your village was attached to, or filling out your 1040. The operation of the government is what you are paying for.

In modern almost-democracies, the scope of the operations of government was determined by people that the population as a whole elect. As is the means of taxation. Now, bearing in mind that they serve the people as a whole via the Constitution, should they be taking more from the people who would feel the least pain as a result? How should that elected body vote given that mandate?

Now, that isn't usually what happens, is it? Money can influence many things, and politicians are one of them, and voters another.

Now, while they need NO justification for a steeply progressive income tax (example, 1963 tax tables, adjusted for inflation) I do believe if you sum up what it would cost to run, say, a steel mill in an America with no federal or state government, you would quickly find that your taxes are a bargain even if your name is Rearden. Industry needs things that are very expensive to obtain in an anarchy, like security, fire protection, etc.
 
BenBurch said:
Taxation has never been about value received.

It is about funding the operations of the government.

Doesn't matter if you are paying tribute to the Athenian League, paying your harvest labor obligation to the Manor your village was attached to, or filling out your 1040. The operation of the government is what you are paying for.

In modern almost-democracies, the scope of the operations of government was determined by people that the population as a whole elect. As is the means of taxation. Now, bearing in mind that they serve the people as a whole via the Constitution, should they be taking more from the people who would feel the least pain as a result? How should that elected body vote given that mandate?

Now, that isn't usually what happens, is it? Money can influence many things, and politicians are one of them, and voters another.

Now, while they need NO justification for a steeply progressive income tax (example, 1963 tax tables, adjusted for inflation) I do believe if you sum up what it would cost to run, say, a steel mill in an America with no federal or state government, you would quickly find that your taxes are a bargain even if your name is Rearden. Industry needs things that are very expensive to obtain in an anarchy, like security, fire protection, etc.
Click to expand...

...don't forget a secure prosperous market which those same public services insure have the spare specie to purchase the products of industrialists. The true strength of America has always been the depth and breadth of our consumers. I am amazed when those that push austerity can't figure out why business isn't better.
 
Alareth said:
The roots of the Tea Party were founded by people demanding fiscal responsibility and tax reforms, but the movement was quickly co-opted by the crazy, racist, misogynist hardliners that the "left" complains about.

As evidence take the 2010 midterms where all these Tea Party candidates swept in on platforms of fiscal responsibility and got straight to work on legislation attacking women's health and the rights of minorities.
Click to expand...
Well that and people looking to distance themselves from the republican brand after the damage the W administration did to it.
 
jj said:
Name-calling? Extremist, racist, economically ignorant Tea Party politicians who have no understanding of the actual laws involved, have no understanding of the controls on an economy, and have no cares about letting people starve and die from the policies and salaries provided by their financial backers are what's left of the GOP.
Click to expand...

You are a delightful fellow. You seem to believe you understand the controls of an economy more than David Brat, an economics professor. He's "economically ignorant", is he?
 
G6000 said:
You are a delightful fellow. You seem to believe you understand the controls of an economy more than David Brat, an economics professor. He's "economically ignorant", is he?
Click to expand...

Well, there's always the option that he is blinded by ideology and/or morally bankrupt.
 
G6000 said:
You are a delightful fellow. You seem to believe you understand the controls of an economy more than David Brat, an economics professor. He's "economically ignorant", is he?
Click to expand...

I believe that's called an "appeal to authority". Brat may understand economics but still allow his truly insane religious and political beliefs to dictate his policy choices, which is no better than not knowing anything about economics.
 
Polaris said:
He did win a GOP primary after all.
Click to expand...

Being Republican isn't the problem. In the current era, however, it can often be a risk factor, if not a symptom, for the type of problem we allude to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom