Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

56

I understand but I don’t think you understand the implications of your statements. You see any use of government financed troops in the market place (such as doing jobs that could be done by waged labour) would be a distortion of the ‘free market’ ideology followed by most right wing libertarians.

No I don’t - but are they free of any cost to the tax payer? I mean is having a large number of military personnel cost effective when you have a non-interventionist foreign policy and nuclear weapons? The US is unlikely to be invaded is it?
To quote wiki “The U.S. military is one of the largest militaries in terms of number of personnel”. Bring the troops back home would mean that the US would have something like 1.4 million active troops within its borders, not to mention the US fleets?

 

56

In other words using American tax payers money to boast a local economy to service a government department. It is not a very good example of Keynesian economic thinking but it is keynesianish.

OK – reread what you have said in your reply – you contend that public servants (troops) would be used to build civil infrastructure projects and provide community services, undercutting ‘free’ labour and forcing labour prices down artificially within a marketplace. And here you are describing a system by which money is transferred from a government budget into the hands of contractors and traders – sorry that isn’t a ‘free market’ system.

But that is what they would be; this is about ‘bring the troops back home’ with the intention of never sending them out again. Are all those troops necessary for defence, it doesn’t look like Mexico or Canada are going to invade the US anytime soon and the US has the largest nuclear arsenals in the world.

So basically you would be creating and operating bases whose main purpose was only to boost a local economy.

 

56
As pointed out Indie has, he suggested that wealth should have greater voting rights so it could block the popular vote.

This is a direct quote from indie in the Question About Operation of Small Government thread

When I asked - Basically you’re proposing a kind of property qualification, in which the wealthy would have more political say than others.
He replied

In other words wealth should have greater voting rights so it could block the popular vote.

 

56

I agree I believe people should get a good wage for a good job and a sound fiscal policy the problem is that’s not what right wing libertarians are promoting. Their ideas as explained would create a system that only served a few and leave the rest open to exploitation.

It depends what you mean by ‘small’ and why not concentrate on have good governance?

As I’ve said before “It seems to me that the whole ‘small government’ argument is a smokescreen, and once the smoke has been cleared it quickly become obvious that what its trying to hide is the same old right wing political agenda which is about preserving or increasing the power of those with advantage at the expense of everyone else.

It’s not about better government but cutting their taxes, it’s not about efficient government but about cutting the benefits going to the disadvantaged and it’s not about ‘freeing’ people but about trying to perpetuate their own wealth and influence.”

 

Buwahahahaha! Talk about misdirection. How can you be so adept at finding meanings not present yet so very inept at understanding what is stated and demonstrated?

What you say that I think and what I have stated and demonstrated by example are vastly different. I've come to expect nothing different from you. There's no reason to make any claim of what you were "trying" to do -- you do understand my point but simply refuse to acknowledge it. If that weren't the case why post the remainder of your reply?

I am all too familiar with the US Tax Code. You however, seem to think that, in regard to US income tax issues, that “return” has the same meaning as “refund”. While the former may result in the latter, the two are NOT the same. Are you aware that many in the US are able to receive an income tax refund when they have actually paid (or had withheld) zero income tax?

The point is not one of purely monetary value. It is one of actual benefit: To one realizing a very large income, a few thousand – ten thousand – even 100 thousand dollars is nothing. Such monetary benefit will not change their lives. To those earning the “average” income, the extra few thousand dollars resulting from elimination of the income tax could be life changing – they get more benefit from it!

A hundred million that would be available for re-invested producing more jobs... And, with smaller government "lobbying" would inherently be less likely to even occur and less influential when actually practiced.

How/why the "system" was set up is for another debate. Hasn't the influence and power of wealth grown with the power and influence of government? Take a look at the regulatory legislation enacted in the same period (1945 - 1970) -- take a look at the non-legislative regulation put into place in that peroid. Who benefited from that flood of regulation? Go a little further -- look at the regulation enacted from 1970 to 1980. During one particular presidential administration (of that period) slightly over 3 million pages of non-legislated regulation was put into effect -- all since various agencies were given the power to "promulgate rules and regulations". Did the middle class wage earner or small business realize a benefit? No.

Cased closed.

 

Balbus, do you understand the purpose and use of examples? If you will put forth all of your efforts, perhaps you can understand what was demonstrated: that, if certain flawed definitions are applied, many would be wrongly classified and taxed as "wealthy" when they are not.

I do not know any "right wing libertarians", I do not see any "right wing libertarians" -- that is a label you have applied.

However, cutting "spending and taxation" defininetly includes cutting taxes. Duh.

My position is that elimination of the income tax would be of more real benefit to the middle class.

Again, case closed.

 

There are no implications to my statements. If you knew much about the US military, you would understand that. Or, maybe not.

Members of the US military have historically accomplished and performed jobs related to flood control, environmental issues… when no public funds were available for such projects. Such is in no way a distortion of the free market ideology for those jobs and projects could not be “done by waged labour” since no funds were available for payment of wages.

The overall point was and is that your idea/statement that millions would be put out of work by our troops returning home is not accurate. Additionally, that military “exercises” are far less expensive than actual combat and/or live support operations – the cost of maintaining troops and equipment at a state of readiness rather than engaged in actual operations would produce an almost unfathomable savings. The total number of US servicemen and women is relatively small in consideration of the population of the entire US.

You seem to have implied that the US would be made better off by perpetual deployment of our armed services – that a nation should maintain an interventionist foreign policy so that their military forces remain “cost effective”. Isn't that what you're saying?

Your assertion that the US economy would be damaged by "bringing the troops home" appears nothing more than further attempt to discredit, by any means possible, the policies and ideas you so adamantly disagree with while having little knowledge or true perspective of the actual circumstances.

 

So you admit that YOU used a poor example to support your flawed ideas and false statements.

No need to apologize for your ignorance, just do some research.

From post 767: “Members of the US military have historically accomplished and performed jobs related to flood control, environmental issues… when no public funds were available for such projects. Such is in no way a distortion of the free market ideology for those jobs and projects could not be “done by waged labour” since no funds were available for payment of wages.”

In addition active duty troops have performed and do perform other tasks in support of small communities who lack funding for such things as building playgrounds and other recreation areas, after school programs for kids, alcohol and drug abuse programs… even picking up litter. Such programs hardly take funds from the hands of “contractors and traders”. There is no additional cost to the taxpayers – servicemen and women receive no additional pay for performing those tasks.

Again, you demonstrate how little you actually know of the US. The “bases” are already in place – none has to be built. The US is somewhat larger than the UK – it inherently takes more troops to defend it. Mexico has already invaded the US – that’s another topic. Who knows what could happen – perhaps circumstances could arise making it prudent that we snatch the UK’s ass out of the fire (again).

And again, case closed.


__________________________

 

"Indie's" idea doesn't seem a bad one.

Even if such system were implemented and the income tax were eliminated, wouldn't everyone still just have one vote?

 

Once more: I do not know of any "right wing libertarians". "Right wingers", to me, are those with a far right ideology -- not just very slightly right of "center". I do know of "libertarians" -- none whom I consider "right wing". Please direct me too those promoting less than a "good wage for a good job".

Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. Most reading this thread are surely already aware of your flawed opinion regarding smaller government and of your illogical belief that such would provide greater benefit to the wealthy. The question I have asked is, "how will it provide such benefit?"

If you can't find the words, provide a specific example. If you are unwilling or unable to answer the question, hell, just say that.

In the case of government, small IS good -- and can be maintained as good by those governed having more influence over those governing.

Final case closed.

_________________

 

Balbus

I've been wondering for some time now: Isn't your use of the "anarchist" avatar contradictory?



:leaving:


_____________________

 

Small government is not good because wealth is not stagnant. It will go up, or it will go down, and history has shown over and over again; including right now where we have the lowest percent of taxes collected as as a percent of the GDP since the mid 1950's, the lowest marginal and capital gains tax rate with wealth inequality at its highest in a century, that if the government doesn't distribute it in things like education, infrastructure and social programs, it will keep on going up. The old saying is true, it takes money to make money, and those who already control capital have most of the power, and will continuously use that power to accumulate more wealth.

 

I don't like big issue arguments really, which has really been a problem for the last page an a half.

Liberal VS Conservationism, Big Government VS Small Government. Capitalism vs Communism, Libertarian vs Liberal.

I think it detracts from a logical middle ground.

 

One thing that seems to be ignored about the rich is that they are the ones who purchase the products that require the labors of many. I'm trying to imagine a society of equals, and how everyone would find gainful employment adequate to purchase anything more than the bare necessities.
The income tax is nothing more than a tool for dividing those who actually pay it from those who do not. Most everyone votes for the candidate who will take less away from them. If government, by law, was required to adjust tax rates to assure that revenues collected were adequate to cover the costs of the budgeted spending each year without borrowing, I don't think we would have politicians willing to create new spending programs unless the people actually demanded them. And our children and their children would be able to have lives as good or better than we have had.

The nature of things is closely related to supply and demand as in a free market based upon profit and loss. If losses exceed profits, eventually the business fails, and government can only offset that for so long by devaluing our already worthless currency as history has shown us time and again.

 

56

The point was that the elimination of income tax would increase the power and influence of wealth, and you don’t seem to be disputing that – yes those lower down benefit from not having to pay the tax but their gain is not actually great (as you admit) and they would also lose out on the benefits that the tax helps pay for. Wealth on the other hand gets huge returns and often doesn’t benefit from the welfare and healthcare benefits anyway so wouldn’t miss them.

You believe in ‘trickle down’?

Would it I’m not so sure I think it will just make it cheaper for wealth to do as it wishes, without hindrance.
I mean I keep asking what ‘small government’ would actually look like and its supporters don’t seem able to describe it.
From long conversations and reading between the lines (my questions often getting ignored) it seems to involve – low taxation, little regulation, little or no public assistance, a free market/ laissez-faire economics system and a Social Darwinist take on social, health and educational provision.
In other words an environment where wealth would definitely have an advantage and a better ability to exploit.

Actually from 1945-70 huge numbers of people moved up into the middle class here is something from wiki –

The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth.

From the late 1970’s to today middle class incomes have either stagnated or fallen and wealth distribution has become far less equal with the wealth becoming far richer and so gaining in power and influence.

 

56

Sorry its not about an understanding of the US army its about an understanding of economics and economic theories.

OH Thank you – you’re making my case for me. I mean this is exactly the point I’ve been making.
The thing is that in free market thinking if no funds are available for something it wouldn’t and should be done and very importantly ‘government’ shouldn’t step in to fill that funding gap.
It is the same thinking that is applied by many right wing libertarians in relation to welfare and healthcare - if no funds are available it wouldn’t and should be done and very importantly ‘government’ shouldn’t step in to fill that funding gap.
What you are proposing is what many on the right would call socialism the idea that if not enough funds are available to finance things for the public good then government should step in to fill the gap. I mean you go on to say -

In other words you think public servants paid for with American tax payers money should be involved in tackling social and welfare issues.
So you are saying that for the public good the government should use tax payers money to pay for things that are not and probably wouldn’t be paid for by the private sector. It’s basically saying that a ‘free market’ system doesn’t always work in the publics interests, what is needed is a mixed economy.

 

56

I thought you had read post 470 because this seem to indicate you didn’t

To repeat - Right wing libertarians want a non interventionists foreign policy and to cut military spending. Now that is also the idea of many on the left, but this right wing approach is based in their ‘small’ government low tax ideology. The left would reallocate any money saved and put it into things like education, training, welfare programmes and healthcare, but those things are disliked even hated by right wing libertarians (and be cut by them as well) and so instead any money clawed back would be given in tax cuts that would mainly favour wealth.

If you hadn’t noticed I’m a left winger

To me its not just about ‘bringing the troops back home’ its about doing what’s best not just for the individual soldier but for the wider society. I don’t think either is served by just dumping them in their bases and leaving them there until they may or may not be needed or in sacking many.

To continue with post 470 –

In many European countries which have smaller military budgets there are welfare systems in place to help people with education, training, healthcare and pensions. In the more militarised US many in the lower levels of society have traditionally looked to the military for such cover (educational scholarships, vocational training, dental and medical care and for many a pension and a rise in social status).

To me the US needs to move away from the military model and begin creating a society that was more geared toward improving the quality of life of everyone in it.

So you do want the US to be the world’s policeman and would promote an interventionist foreign policy – this seem to go against earlier statement so could you clarify please?

 

56

Again thank you – you like many others promoting ‘small government’ don’t seem willing or able to actually explain what you mean.

I feel that the problem is that this isn’t a rational argument it is based on a taught response to just dislike ‘government’ which means many ideas are ill thought through or even may seem contradictory.

 

No, not really, try again. Products the rich buy that are unique to the rich are exactly that, they're niche products that employe few people anywhere in their production or supply lines. Consumer spending is driven by basically everyone who isn't the rich. Hell we don't even have to use the rich, we can use $80,000 a year and up, the numbers just aren't there.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2010/income.txt
Especially when you consider most of that large group of 80,000 and up are in fact people making only up to to a low 6 figure income like $130,000.

The vast majority of people in the world are employed in producing foods and services that the vast majority of people in the world actually use/need. Most of the luxury spending by the rich goes right back to the rich.

 

Indie

Again your points have been covered before - rather than just repeat stuff why not deal with the already outstanding criticisms of it?

The thing is that what’s needed is an understanding of what the problems are before you can tackle them.

In my view the present financial problems of the US are in the main down to two irrational and/or deeply flawed ideologies – paranoid anti-communism and neoliberal capitalism.

The first wasted vast amounts of money and opportunities that otherwise could have been more wisely used and the other shifted vast amounts of money and power into the hands of wealth at the expense of everyone else.

And they are linked because I don’t think neoliberalism would have become so dominant if US society hadn’t been so purged of left wing ideas.

To me the bastard child of these ideas is right wing libertarianism, its supporters have been taught that virtually anything to the left of their extreme right wing outlook is ‘socialism’ and that the only model for a society is a ‘free market’.