Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Ed. My first comment is petty but begrudge me the point. While I would agree that you helped pay my wages while I have been in the service, I have also paid for MY OWN WAGES because I get taxed just like you do. Sorry, but that is a BIG pet peeve of mine.
I agree with a good portion of what you have said here up to the point that both of us are "faced with an ongoing fight to protect ourselves from the greed and avarice of a powerful and concerted drive to impoverish, not just us, but our children and our children's children for the benefit of an elite few". You don't specify who you think is trying to impoverish us. If you believe that it's conservatives in gov't I would have to disagree. I truly believe that true conservatism believes in sefl determination. It believes that no man needs the gov't to hold his hand or provide his living for him. In this great country we live in, there is no reason why a man (or woman) can't stand up on their own 2 feet and make a good life for themselves. The founding fathers made a point of this in the statement "that all powers not specified for the federal gov't belong to the states" (not an exact quote, in a hurry to finish the post). The Federal gov't should have NO major involvement in our lives other than the basic services (ie. defense, roads etc..). The fed's have usurped entirely too much power from the states and should return such forth with. This nation was founded as a constitutional republic and should return to such. Give the power back to the states and locallities and many of the problems we experience with the Fed's would disapear. If you take away some of the monsters size, you wouldn't have to feed the monster so much. I know this kinda rambles, I hope it gives you a better idea on my true feelings concerning gov't
On the petty comment, I felt the same way. I still think it is stupid to pay a soldier out of the treasury and tax his wages to put back in the treasury, but I can see the logic if you add families of Service People to the mix. Not taxing a single person and a married person with dependents is not really fair to the married person, unless, as they did in my day, you provide allotments for the families. I don't know if that is still the case. And in my time a chunk of the allotment came out of the serviceman's pay. It was always service man, Mothers were simply not permitted to be in the service. Things change. Problem, I agree with the principle, and see the potential inequity. You agree with the principle, and don't see the inequities.
I actually thought the Elite were pretty well agreed on. But to clarify, I am specifically referring to people with incomes in the half million dollar a year and up bracket. Not Net Worths, incomes. Believe it or not, I like the idea of a company making millions, if they reinvest in American Factories and offices. So, I believe that profit or income should be taxed unless it is invested. And it should be taxed at a higher rate the more of it there is. The most unfair, and destructive tax in the USA is the social Security tax. It is a flat 15% of payroll on the first 93 thousand dollars of income. It starts at the first dollar. In the interest of justice it should end at the last dollar. Just that one change would cure all the financial woes of Social Security.
Regarding Self Sufficiency. YOU aren't self sufficient, nor am I nor are the insanely rich.
We are interdependent. Without Truck Drivers...no jobs. Period, no jobs. Without garbage collectors, we are buried in garbage in a couple of weeks. Buried, not able to do anything but deal with garbage. Eliminate store clerks, you eliminate stores. take the cleaning crew out of the factory, you have to increase factory workers to do the cleaning, or close the factory.
The Richest Man in the world is DEPENDENT on millions of people for his wealth. Self sufficient is pure myth. A hermit, living in the hills with a handmade bow and arrows, and seeds gathered from the forest Might be as close to self sufficient as anyone can get, and as close to ABSOLUTE poverty as possible, and as he ages, dead or dependent on others for survival.
So, what is the roll of government in all this. At the very least it should be involved in providing a stable legal framework for doing business. A framework that provides security from crime, that provides security for workers and employers, and provides a just framework for working out disputes. So, the government should provide for the common defense, and the general welfare. It should provide for paying for its own operation. So it must have the power to tax, and to enforce payment. People in the US are permitted to move about freely. I can work my whole life in Iowa, and retire to Florida, or Alabama, if you can give me a reason. If Iowa provides a retirement for All the People who work there, they get all the workers, unless every other state does the same thing. It is that same thing issue that puts the feds into welfare, and Social Security and Medicare. It is that same thing that puts them into education and voting rights, and employment opportunity and housing opportunity et al.
Companies move to Arizona because we have a right to work law keeping wages down. If you don't have a right to work law, Arizona has an advantage. If Arizona's Right to work law is repealed, you are not at a disadvantage. I predict that within the next twenty years, a Federal Right to Work law will be proposed. As a liberal, were I in congress, I would propose legislation allowing closed shops in any company involved in interstate commerce. That has two effects. Local Companies, like Toms Shoe store could benefit from the right to work law, but Wal Mart could not. We disagree because you believe the Paternal Corporation still exists. I don't believe that, and would make it the paternal government to replace the paternal corporation.