Unemployment almost 10% nationally

[Royd]

Quote:
They spent the seed money on reefer.

Seriously though, I believe the communes were more of a communist model, NOT a socialist model. In socialism you are still rewarded for hard work. It is just that you attempt to keep the majority in the middle, pulling up the fallen from the bottom, with some of the good fortune from those that have succeeded the most. A way to maintain a strong middle class.

ON

I'll have to disagree with you, on the socialism. The reason that all of those systems fail, is because hard work and success are punished, not rewarded. It's really no different than setting the limits of $250,000 per year, as the punitive number, where the govt. figures that you really don't deserve any more, therefore, they are entitled to strongarm theft, with the threat of heavy financial penalties or jail.
Why should a productive member of society put forth any more effort, than absolutely necessary, if, beyond a certain limit, the majority of his effort is confiscated, to support those, who, even if given the tools and the material to do something with their lives, would pawn the tools and let the material rot?

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:

Seriously though, I believe the communes were more of a communist model, NOT a socialist model. In socialism you are still rewarded for hard work. It is just that you attempt to keep the majority in the middle, pulling up the fallen from the bottom, with some of the good fortune from those that have succeeded the most. A way to maintain a strong middle class.

ON

I'll have to disagree with you, on the socialism. The reason that all of those systems fail, is because hard work and success are punished, not rewarded. It's really no different than setting the limits of $250,000 per year, as the punitive number, where the govt. figures that you really don't deserve any more, therefore, they are entitled to strongarm theft, with the threat of heavy financial penalties or jail.
Why should a productive member of society put forth any more effort, than absolutely necessary, if, beyond a certain limit, the majority of his effort is confiscated, to support those, who, even if given the tools and the material to do something with their lives, would pawn the tools and let the material rot?

That's the common fallacy perpetrated by some factions of the elite. Those societies don't fail. Europe is alive and well and they have numerous societies based on socialism. Europe is recovering from this recession faster than we are. You make it sound as though the government actually caps your wages in a socialist society. They don't. There are plenty of millionaires and billionaires in Sweden or Finland.

I know you used the 250k figure because that's the one being debated right now. So if Joe Blow the plumber is making 500k a year, which is very common for plumbers I might add. He would be paying about 20% on his first 250k or around 50k, Then on the next 250k he would be paying an extra 53k, so a total of 103k instead of 100k. It doesn't sound like much does it? That's because it isn't. It's needed to make up the shortfall from an unfinanced war in Iraq and a bank bailout that helped the elite and did nothing for the common man.

It all boils down to everyone going Wah about paying taxes. It cost money to run a country. Especially a country that is perpetually at war. As for the people given materials and tools. Yes there are people like that. It's part of the human condition. There's always someone that doesn't pull their load or cheats on their taxes or collects welfare while they are getting paid under the table. It's a very small percentage of the overall picture.

The bigger question is why everyone is so concerned about people that are wealthy having to pay a little more. Where do you think they are getting their wealth from anyway. If it wasn't for us they wouldn't be wealthy. So there's nothing wrong with them paying a bigger share.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
I'll have to disagree with you, on the socialism. The reason that all of those systems fail, is because hard work and success are punished, not rewarded. It's really no different than setting the limits of $250,000 per year, as the punitive number, where the govt. figures that you really don't deserve any more, therefore, they are entitled to strongarm theft, with the threat of heavy financial penalties or jail.
Why should a productive member of society put forth any more effort, than absolutely necessary, if, beyond a certain limit, the majority of his effort is confiscated, to support those, who, even if given the tools and the material to do something with their lives, would pawn the tools and let the material rot?

That's the common fallacy perpetrated by some factions of the elite. Those societies don't fail. Europe is alive and well and they have numerous societies based on socialism. Europe is recovering from this recession faster than we are. You make it sound as though the government actually caps your wages in a socialist society. They don't. There are plenty of millionaires and billionaires in Sweden or Finland.

I know you used the 250k figure because that's the one being debated right now. So if Joe Blow the plumber is making 500k a year, which is very common for plumbers I might add. He would be paying about 20% on his first 250k or around 50k, Then on the next 250k he would be paying an extra 53k, so a total of 103k instead of 100k. It doesn't sound like much does it? That's because it isn't. It's needed to make up the shortfall from an unfinanced war in Iraq and a bank bailout that helped the elite and did nothing for the common man.

It all boils down to everyone going Wah about paying taxes. It cost money to run a country. Especially a country that is perpetually at war. As for the people given materials and tools. Yes there are people like that. It's part of the human condition. There's always someone that doesn't pull their load or cheats on their taxes or collects welfare while they are getting paid under the table. It's a very small percentage of the overall picture.

The bigger question is why everyone is so concerned about people that are wealthy having to pay a little more. Where do you think they are getting their wealth from anyway. If it wasn't for us they wouldn't be wealthy. So there's nothing wrong with them paying a bigger share.

Actually, yes, 20% is too much, for a system that probably wastes more than 10% in paper shuffling beaureaucracies. Now, if they took 10% of said $250,000, the plumber would have $25G to hire another worker, of which the govt. if it were totally fair, would recieve another $2,500, and one less family would be on the govt. dole. Well, except for that useless beaureaucrat, who would have to go out and get a real job.

ETA. Sorry, but countries who confiscate 50% or more of a person's productivity, whether it be Sweden, France or wherever, to keep the wheels of society greased and moving, is a failure. Two month vacations and 30 hour work weeks and retiring at 60, only speaks to the indifference of the people, to be productive, because individual effort is not rewarded.

 

[Organics North]

Royd,

Why do so many fear European socialism?... I would really like to know how much time those of you that fear European socialism have ACTUALLY SPENT in Europe?
Or do you just take the talking head Rush Limbo's word for it?? IMO you are voluntary slaves to the elite..

. If income disparity between the rich and and working class gets any bigger we will fail as a country..We are already falling behind.

Here is my simple example of Socialism:
In Finland say you get pulled over for speeding.. They look at your national ID and see you make $50K a year.. Your ticket is say 1% (for the sake of easy math) or $500. Know a top dog hockey player gets pulled over say he makes $5M per year.. his 1% ticket is $50,000..

Fair! Both are 1 percent of the income... Way I see it we punish the working class and let the wealthy get off easy in this country..

People still work hard and get "rich" businesses grow and prosper, because they have a great base of healthy well educated people to choose from.. Matter of fact Business works in conjunction with schools, almost all Masters or PhD thesis work is done while people are working for a company, not just in school.. Companies like it because they can apply the students work to their business to make it better! Students like it cause the can earn money and go to school.

Please question your reason for thinking it is so bad..Please... I have not heard one good reason yet! You are all so used to getting taken advantage. By the fat powerful elite who steal from you and blame the poor for your woes... Wake up!
Realize your approach to getting ahead is like squeezing sand in your hand.. The harder you squeeze and try and hold on the more sand runs out...

We have been there done that...

ON

 

[Royd]

Quote:
Your example is a perfect example of equity. It is not punitive toward the more wealthy. I totally agree with an across the board even number, for paying taxes. Rich, poor, in between. A flat 10% of whatever, whether it be wages or purchases, matters not...The fact is, 50% of us pay no income tax, and actually get a refund, called Earned Income Credit. ETA. Here, in Florida, even though it made my eyes bug out, they have simply doubled the registration tax on all vehicles, trailers, boats....It couldn't get anymore equitable than that, so I don't complain much. On the other hand, a county garbage tax, which had no basis in reality, meaning that the figure was arbitrary and had to be paid, because it is attached to the property, is completely wrong. I end up paying $250 per year, for about 500 lbs. of garbage. I am about as "green" as you can get. The family, who lives the life of a consumer and creates several tons of garbage per year, pays the same amount.

When I was young, I thought that everyone should recieve acreage and a house and everyone could live the idyllic utopian life...Well, the truth is, that life, for most human beings, consists of hitting as few licks as possible. It is the very reason that we have become a fat, lazy nation.
Why learn to do math, when you can punch a few buttons on a calculator? Why learn to read, spell, and punctuate, when you can just watch a video?
We have also witnessed, before our very eyes, the end result of the workers' paradise, in the unions of America. The old adage, "Never bite the hand that feeds you." could not be more true.
Instead of taking a little and setting some aside, they were like the kid in the candy store, without parental supervision. It was fun, while it lasted, but the shelves are now empty, and they are blaming the candy store owner. On top of that, they are demanding that people on the street, refill the jars, so that they can have another go at it.

 

[Organics North]

Quote:
Royd, agreed..
The good life looks to have gotten the better of us...

Same with the inherent nature of human greed.. Workers have done companies wrong just as companies have done workers wrong.
Now days it seems everyone is out for themselves.. Loyalty is a rarity these days.

Heck my "grudge" is I worked my tail off for close to 20 years and the company got bought out... I never got to "realize" the gain that stock holders got. So now I question loyalty.. I was loyal and got the short end of the stick..

Well that is why I am self employed now...

.

Complex problems we face indeed!

Be well
ON

 

[Chickanmanfromarkansas]

I think that actually unemployment is over 26% right now. That 10% is what the government wants you to think it is at. Listen around and you'll hear it is way higher.

 

[ivan3]

Royd wrote: ETA. Sorry, but countries who confiscate 50% or more of a person's productivity, whether it be Sweden, France or wherever, to keep the wheels of society greased and moving, is a failure. Two month vacations and 30 hour work weeks and retiring at 60, only speaks to the indifference of the people, to be productive, because individual effort is not rewarded.

Well, productivity is a measure of efficiency and the Germans are nothing if not efficient and have had what amounts to a single payer nonprofit health system since Otto Von Bismark passed the first law regarding health care for workers (Otto was no friend of socialists, by the way). They currently spend less than 10% of their GDP on health care whereas we spend 14%+. So we're allowing the `mixed economy' Germans advantage in trade. 60% of health care spending in the U.S. is layed out by you and I and every other taxpayer and, the truth be told. we could cover a nonprofit single payer system with what is currently being spent (if you think that either party will actually screw with medicare I've a bridge to sell you - and that bill is coming due). Obama's current fix is another love letter to the insurance companies and a wink and nod the pharmaceutical manufacturers (not much different to my way of thinking than the Republican's pandering to their aged constituency by passing the unfunded 400 billion dollar prescription drug bill). I guess you could call it crony capitalism and I guess it amounts to hard work for the boys and girls on K Street (regular bunch of Horatio Algers...).

I don't care what we call it if we can actually start retiring some debt. I'm with the party of What Ever Works

A bleak assessment of someone who compared the German and U.S. health care systems: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/22.pdf

To paraphrase a certain English author, `we are at war, we've always been at war...' (that we have `nutrient free zones' to the east and west of our little section of the petri dish won't prevent our being sucked dry while we bicker).

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Boyd Said:
We have also witnessed, before our very eyes, the end result of the workers' paradise, in the unions of America. The old adage, "Never bite the hand that feeds you." could not be more true.
Instead of taking a little and setting some aside, they were like the kid in the candy store, without parental supervision. It was fun, while it lasted, but the shelves are now empty, and they are blaming the candy store owner. On top of that, they are demanding that people on the street, refill the jars, so that they can have another go at it.

Here is one thing alot of people keep forgetting about the unions and the oft maligned "pension obligations". During the late 40s on the unions were necessary and did the job they were expected to do. By the 70s however, many of them had become as bloated and corrupt as the people they had been formed to fight. As laws came into being that negated the need for unions they fought to have meaning. (sociologists call this goal displacement - think March of Dimes) So their public support waned.

Then something happened while few noticed.

In the 80s Reagan made it legal for corporations to "utilize" pension funds for current expenses.

Prior to that pension money was sacrosanct. Untouchable by the firm connected to it. In most cases it was untouchable by the union, it had to be handled by a third party. Vanguard is a huge one for this handling.

Anyway, up until this point the 3 big auto makers had massive pension funds. All three were fully self funding. Solvent.
But, the companies were not. Bad decisions lack of flexibility etc etc and union issues kept them from being able to compete with Japan. So Reagan let them delve into the pension money. Within two years it was all gone and they were screaming about their crippling pension obligations.

There were many many businesses that were bought in hostile take overs specifically for their pensions. The pension was raided the company slumped and dumped and the pension obligations turned over to the state pension insurance at anywhere from 75% to 1% of what the employees had expected.

There are many layers to these stories.​

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

If you don't like the "isms" that are out there - make up a new one!

There are no pure any of these anyway, they are all some form of mixed market economies. The only question is the percentage in the mix.

Not one of these systems work as well in practice as they do on paper - not one! What is needed is always a balance of private and public. But when the CEO of citi says (and the then chair of the fed agrees) that "the Market is a better arbiter of meeting the needs of the people than democracy". You have a serious problem.

We have been living under this ethos for 30 years and it does not work. Can't we go back to some of what we had in the 50's? (Although even I think some of that was too socialist.

)