 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
GePap, How many of these people would help themselves if you were not there? How many would just sit down and starve to death? The point is that their are opportunities everywhere in this country. It is just far easier to turn to the government for help. That way you can still maintain your lifestyle and don't have to give up the three TV's and the microwave to make ends meet. If government would force people to make their own breaks then society as a whole would be more productive. I can assure you that us 6 figure makers won't let those trying to suceed starve. |
Actually, not many, becuase the issues they face are trully difficult, or becuase they come to us to deal with the government burocracy. Some woman who is disabled and no longer able to work, wth multiple children to feed, some of them disabled..how would she help herself? NO, I don;t buy the notion that epople can fend for themselves. Look at some lace like Rural china, with no safety net, no government activism (not even a government willing to dump huge amounts of subsidies to build some grand scheme, like the continental railroad, which got built as quickly only cause the gov made it worht the while of companies): can you tell me they are better off? NO. The fact is that we live far better than most of humanity, and honestly, you are trying to prove something you have no proof off: the avrage american today is far better than the average american was before the safety net, the richer are richer, the poorer are richer..so how can you prove that without the safety net we would be even richer? Point me somewhere? If the US is richer than say, Europe, studies show it is simply a matter of how many hours on average we work, not that we are in any way more productive. And we still face more hunger, and poverty than over there, even with our definitions of poverty.
Here is a simple question: imagine all those millions who die yearly of starvation, or communicable diseases: imagine they lived: how many great ideas have been lost, talents wasted cause someone thinks they're ability to hav some SUV is more important than some other person being fed? I don;t buy it, not for a second. There was no golden age in the past: even when conservtives point to thier golden age, like the 50's, well, wake up, tax rates then were higher, the social safety net made up of unions and such... no, those that claim entitlements make people lazy don;t really have anywhere to point to to prove the case. NYC has far more entilements that rural Mississippi- and the poor and rich live better in NYC than rural Mississippi (which for the poor is never syaing much).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The Tax burden on the upper incomes today is far lower than it was during the "glory days" of the 50's and 60's, and yet that did not seem to inhibit growth during those two decades, and lo and behold, cut the income gap as well. Tax rates on the top incomes are back to 1920's levels, and lo and behold, soon enough so will the income gap. |
The "glory days of the 50s and 60s" weren't a consequence of excellent structural preperation by the U.S. government, they were a consequence of the pent up world wide demand after the great depression and WW2. Our growth was in large part a consequence of being the only major industrialized nation to have not had any damage done to it during the war, and which took comparatively minimal losses to its workforce due to warfare.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Service jobvs, which is most of the jobs tha come up, are not going to pay (and more importantly, lack the benefits off) the jobs they are replacing. That bodes badly for the lower classes and middle class. |
One interesting point.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The rich are never made poor by the tax burden in this country, sepcially since they earn enough to know how to doge as much taxes as possible. |
No one should be made poor by taxes, not even close. And are you equating wealth with knowledge here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Eleven billion buys you a lot. Places to generate your electricity, store your garbage, make the products that you consume and eat up the pollution that is created in the process, people to staff the armed forces etc. ad nauseum. A large percentage of the land in the states west of the Mississippi is owned by the government, restricted from the sort of development that makes a large metropolitan area possible. This in turn makes transportation costs in these states very high. Add those costs to the costs for administering the federal lands and the opportunity costs of having half of our land forever held by the feds and never appearing on either federal or local tax rolls and you'll find that 11 billion quite quickly. |
Large sections of the west don't have the resources to build large metropolitan areas on: New York is a natural growth city, unlike many in the west who owe their existance to modern technology like air conditioning, or cars, or immense public projects to bring in water. Fine, large cities could not be what they are without huge project, but many of the cities of the west owe their existance to huge public outlays. What is the wide expanse of Montana good for? Cattle? Can do it cheaper elsewhere. There is a reason why people are leaving the plains. The feds sweetened the deal to get people to live there..but it makes little reason to stay.
As for the 11 billion figure..the point is this: NYC has the greatest tax burden in the US..if NYC had to pay only for itself and its services, even it bloated welfare system..all New Yorkers would still get significant tax breaks from what they owe now. Intead, NYC bears the worst tax burden in the country, we ship billions out, and people in the south still complain baout our system..well, screw you guys, we pay our way, and part of yours, not the other way around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Large sections of the west don't have the resources to build large metropolitan areas on: New York is a natural growth city, unlike many in the west who owe their existance to modern technology like air conditioning, or cars, or immense public projects to bring in water. Fine, large cities could not be what they are without huge project, but many of the cities of the west owe their existance to huge public outlays. What is the wide expanse of Montana good for? Cattle? Can do it cheaper elsewhere. There is a reason why people are leaving the plains. The feds sweetened the deal to get people to live there..but it makes little reason to stay.
As for the 11 billion figure..the point is this: NYC has the greatest tax burden in the US..if NYC had to pay only for itself and its services, even it bloated welfare system..all New Yorkers would still get significant tax breaks from what they owe now. Intead, NYC bears the worst tax burden in the country, we ship billions out, and people in the south still complain baout our system..well, screw you guys, we pay our way, and part of yours, not the other way around. |
And my point is that neither of us would be a fraction of what we are without the other. Everyone whining about this is on both sides is wrong to make a huge deal of it. Quibble about the degree of this or that, but realize that we are interdependent. NYC would be a much smaller and poorer city if it had to rely upon the land within its own borders for food and resources, and without a place like NYC much of the rest of the country would never have built up to its economic potential.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
And my point is that neither of us would be a fraction of what we are without the other. Everyone whining about this is on both sides is wrong to make a huge deal of it. Quibble about the degree of this or that, but realize that we are interdependent. NYC would be a much smaller and poorer city if it had to rely upon the land within its own borders for food and resources, and without a place like NYC much of the rest of the country would never have built up to its economic potential. |
I more than clearly understand that..yes, NYC need outside resources to flourish..its vitality is built by immigrants, and it runs on water brought in form a wide watershed..but that is not the point. The point is that we live in a country were the biggest beneficiaries of the system, the poor states, are the ones that complain most about the system, and talk about the east places like NYC being a crutch on them, when in reality, they are, finacially, a crutch on us. And little by little we are getting sick of it. Both the Feds and the rest of NY State treat NYC as some trust fund to take money out of, all the while ignoring its needs. And on top of that they insult us...a classic example of looking a gift horse in the mouth.
As for the notion of benefits..the poor states, where the welfare system is weakest..remain the poor states. I don;t see Arkansas leaping by leaps and bounds in eonomic prosperity cause it's people have to fend for themselves..they remian down there in the socio-economic standings and will most likely remain there. So again, I am really waiting for someone to point out that conservative wodnerland of no welfare for anyone were everyone is richer for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Actually it is possible to have job growth in a recession. This is called 'opportunistic job creation'. For an economy to be out of recession it would have to run on full steam, hence jobs are directed towards sectors that fuel that steam. Much like both the locomotive driver and his helping hand are furiously pouring coal in the furnace to heat the boiler.
Now the locomotive is running at full speed, but cannot be fueled further for fear that the boiler might explode. The locomitive driver tells his assistant to blow off the steam to take pressure from the boiler, while the locomotive driver takes it upon himself to look out for any possible Indian attacks. In that sense the locomitive driver is taking an opportunistic job, he is doing something that might prevent job loss for them both. However in order for real growth they would need a bigger boiler.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Well I have still not been able to find a job. I have been looking for six months and I have still not found anything. It almost feels like I will never find a job.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-11-2003 05:00
It's just that we've been down so far that the bottom now looks like up. 
Oh my god, and you always sounded so reasonable. You're one of those losers who buy that crap!?! 
|