Posted on 04/03/2006 12:16:03 PM PDT by Rockitz
Good post. Is it just a coindidence that the Senators and Congressman about to sell us out are rich too?
That sounds a lot like the problem in Mexico as described in this article.
You're speaking as if "poverty" were some sort of fluid. Having poor people is of itself neutral: there's no reason poor people must stay poor. They can work, invent, engage in entrepreneurship, and so on. If you actually tried to prove that poor people are inherently an economic liability, you'll realize that your thinking is hopelessly tangled up.
*Sigh*...this sort of deconstruction may be fun to you but it is of little practical use for those of us that still operate in the real world.
No..having great amounts of poor people is not "nuetral". There all sorts of problems that have to be addressed and actually dealt with.
In theory all these people could conceivably "do something" but until all these people devise specific, practical ways in which to actually do just that your economy will continue to stagnate.
It's sort of like like saying that anyone can be a millionaire, -they just need to figure out a way to get a million bucks. How to actually get these masses of poor people out of poverty by transforming them into economically prosperous individuals remains the big question. You haven't solved the actual logistics involved. Until you (or these people) actually figure out a practical way to do exactly that, your "strategy" for these third world countries means nothing.
>>In election after election, both in this country and abroad, the very people who are the most inclined to vote political candidates who advocate "big government" solutions to public problems are the people of the lower classes.
That's bollocks; people of every economic stratum try to vote themselves benefits. The poor often favor direct welfare--but so do rich liberals; rich conservatives also bribe politicians and seek government contracts and other largesse. It's democracy itself that's a stupid idea, as the founders themselves knew very well.
Yes, you've now done a complete 180 and and conceded the implausibility of your open borders proposal! One must be able to reconcile the political dimension with the kind of economic philosphy/policy they are advocating.
That political dimension can difficult and very frustrating but alas it cannot be circumvented or simply swept aside (the communists found that out the hard way). And given a choice between doing away with the government largess altogether, or restricting immigration, - guess which way nine out ten citizens will vote...??
BTW, glad you mentioned the Founding Fathers. They were not actually in favor of open borders either, - were they..? Guess they must of thought that was a stupid idea as well.
I'm impressed! It's not that common to meet a socialist on FR, and it's less common to meet a socialist who admits it. Contrary to your socialist version of history, though, it was the mega-rich who lobbied for an income tax. Why? Because before income taxes, the government was funded by import duties and excise taxes, mostly paid by the mega-rich. The income tax was a massive tax-cut for the wealthy.
You are correct: every nation in the world has socialist elements in its economy.
Infrastructure is an ideologically neutral term, since it can be provided by the government, or by private means.
Red herring: it could be, but it never is. You just finished mocking the very thought that "infrastructure" would be paid for by any but public means. Don't be coy.
A free people voting to tax themselves to build infrastructure, which then all can use, hardly qualifies as "socialism."
The usual delusion: they aren't voting to tax themselves; they're voting to tax the unwilling. If it's their wish to pony up their own money, no vote is required. A vote is required because they intend to pony up someone else's money, by force.
You have my leave to remain in humble circumstances and as ignorant as you please.
At least you're a cute socialist who uses archaic English.
the marginal tax rate by 1936 was close to 70 something percent....http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0303-14.pdf.
in acountry where resources are largely concentrated in the hands of a few, as was the US in 1900, and Mexico today, a tax can and does provoke gradual wealth re-distibution. Make no mistake about it, that this fact is THE PRIMARY obstacle to republic/democratic government throughout the world. The Mexican elite know this and prefer to export there problems to a country where this wealth redistribution will care for their social problems.
oops..bad link but more about initial tax rates.....http://www.freemarketproject.org/commentary/2006/com20060111.asp
.....The U.S. federal income tax, established with the enactment of the 16th amendment in 1913, began with a top marginal rate of 7 percent. This quickly escalated to 77 percent by 1918.....!!!!!!
And it exceeded 90% after WWII. And?
a tax can and does provoke gradual wealth re-distibution.
We already understand that you're a socialist. Where are you going with this?
"We already understand that you're a socialist. Where are you going with this"....this issue is the explanation of why and where we are with Mexico today. Your opinion of me does'nt get any of us closer to that. Usually on FR the ad hominem attack is regarded as pretty.....liberal
proving that if we simply stop paying federal benefits, the numbers will decrease.
Umm, I believe mo was simply stating a fact, not suggesting that it be carried out. Our wealth is being redistributed through taxes even now, and the wealthy elite in Mexico are taking advantage of that fact rather than address it among themselves.
Another wonderful method of redistribution of wealth is commerce - honest trade - value for value. Alas, Mexico hasn't figured that one out yet in the midst of their corruption.
Ad hominem? You should learn what the term means. Identifying your position as what it is is hardly an ad hominem attack.
Calling me, and others on this forum socialists does'nt help illuminate issues that divide the world. The problem in Mexico, is virtually identical to that of the Middle-East-and that is the extreme concentration of a vast majority of resources in the hands of a few. The Mexicans have our border as a solution; the Mid-East has jihad. When 15-17 families, out of tens of millions in Mexico, hold in xcess of 95% of the resources, the consequences of that are ultimately are being paid by the the American middle-class. That this issue seems so obscure to American leaders, is extraordinarily troubling to me, and should be to others.
If you can explain to me as to how labeling others trying to discuss the issue "socialists" contributes to the solution, I'm all ears.
That is a fundamentally socialist analysis of the situation. It is also an incorrect analysis. They do have a few rich and many poor, but it's a large leap to conclude that "that's exactly the problem with Mexico." And it leads to incorrect conclusions: namely that "what Mexico needs is redistribution."
Someone else on this thread defended your posts by suggesting that you aren't defending socialism; you're merely commenting on things as they are. On the contrary, you're defending socialism.
If you can explain to me as to how labeling others trying to discuss the issue "socialists" contributes to the solution, I'm all ears.
Straw man: "labeling others" isn't what's going on. I'm clearly identifying a socialist analysis of Mexico's problems as a socialist analysis. That contributes in at least one respect: it clarifies the positions being advanced.
FREEPER SHEANA FAMOUSLY POSTED THIS:
Dear Mr. President:
I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family of 20 relatives, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this. I will skip all the legal nuisances like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure Mexico ----as our best friend---will handle these matters the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your friend, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let Pres Fox know that when I arrive, I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All government forms must be printed in English.
4. My kids must be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down, preferably upside down.
7. I plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to Mexican government services.
9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put US flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. and I do not want any complaints or
negative comments from the locals.
12. I would like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and do not plan to be subject to Mexican labor laws or tax laws.
13. Please tell all the people in Mexico to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on their economy.
I know you will agree to my request because you graciously accommodate all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. And Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. It is most appreciated.
Sincerely,
Then, before you can say "hasta la vista, baby," working class born-American taxpayers are footing the bills for immigrants' medical needs, welfare, food stamps, housing, all levels of schooling including college, child care, maternity benefits, and so on.
Taxpayers are subsidizing immigrants' daily food intake, housing, reduced mortgages, free medical, education, reduced in-state tuition and out of state tuition fees. We also foot the legal bills when they start suing if we don't provide these goodies pronto.
Lastly, and more ominous, is that they become hyphenated voting blocs, demanding representation in the US Congress, state legislatures, and beyond, so that they can get even more government benefits. They bring with them their utter contempt for our efforts to maintain a civilied society under our Constitution.
OK, did I hear you say "underdeveloped countries?"
Ha.
Mexico has more "Forbes" billionaires, 11, than all but eight other nations. It has more billionaires than Saudi Arabia, Switzerland or Taiwan. It also has more than 85,000 millionaires.
According to a CNN report, Mexico sits on oil reserves worth about $400 billion, but Mexico's state-owned oil company, Pemex, doesn't have the investment funds to tap those reserves, and Mexico's Congress refuses to allow foreign investment in Pemex. However, some observers say this is due to Mexican gov't corruption, and the obsession to line their own pockets.
Adding insult to injury American taxpayers are subsidizing foreign aid transfers to Mexico. According to Visa International--which is now clamoring for a share of the transfer fees--American money sent South of the Border by illegals constitutes $38 BILLION this year alone constituting Mexico's second largest most profitable industry.
America should mandate proof for all cash transfers out of the US and/or force all transferring agencies -- banks, credit unions, Amex, Western Union to collect a substantial withholding tax -- 50%, say -- on every unexplained foreign remittance.
Mexico is a wealthy oil-producing neighbor of the US forces its poor people to flee to the US to work and then send money back home. Mexico has no welfare safety nets, health insurance for its people and no Social Security System.
The US even provides the defense umbrella to protect Mexico, so they have no real defense expenses.
America needs to seal our borders and let Vicente Fox know that we will cut off every penny in aid he gets from the United States.
The government of Mexico---with all of its oil revenue----needs to be taking care of its own people, not "outsourcing' them as wards of American taxpayers. Mexico can well-afford it.
Ths unmitigated contempt for America, and working-class, tax-paying Americans, cannot go unchallenged. The sense of entitlement these people have is outrageous-----that the rest of us owe them a living. And that US citizens, and the US government, exist for their convenience while they break our laws, at will.
The only thing between us and camouflage-clad federales patrolling our streets with shoulder holsters is the sacrosanct US rule of law.
The drug cartels would never allow it. They are the real money and power in Mexico. The original "ruling families" now rum most of their businesses at the pleasure of the cartels. As long as the cartels can launder their money through them, they are left alone. By the same token, the cartels and "families" buy and sell the politicians.
The PRI socialists didn't rock the boat as long as they could get their bribe money. What is collected in taxes is no insignificant sum, but aftere all the corrupt government officials pay themselves for their service, there isn't anything left.
If the Rich in Mexico paid more taxes, it would only result in wealthier government officials. Nothing more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.