Obama wants to tax ppl making over a million which is not "the wealthy", it will just hurt the economy further. But if you wanna really fix the economy you'd end the fed and stop printing money out of thin air. Anyway the Obama administration is going to be prosecuted because of what Eric Holder and the ATF did by selling weapons to Mexican Gangs cause he wanted to blame legal gun shops/shows in America as the reason the gangs in Mexico have all those guns but his scheme is not working. The Mexican people are sick of the drug war and they caught Obama red handed selling the guns.
Boy, the clique gonna love this its been a while since they argue about Obama but In the words of Lionel, Lionel, Lionel from channel 11: The government yes, both Democrats and Republicans don't care what none you people have to say. They don't give a *** about your opinion because it does not count, they gonna do what they gonna do. At the end of the day, it will be grown men acting like some sissies fighting and bickering when they know *** well, the GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DEFAULT, end of story, now let the fighting begins.
Raising taxes on the wealthy is a must, President Obama should not back down on this fight again. The public is on your side, economist is on your side, even history PROVE raising taxes on wealthy ALWAYS work. When half the nation's wealth is controlled by 2% of the nation's people and companies are reporting record profits while American workers face record unemployment and the gap between rich and poor is a chasm and home values are plummeting while sales of million dollar plus real estate gone up 25%, this nation, under God, IS divisible.
Even if you taxed all the US millionaires 100% of there money, not even income, but all of the money they have it would not come close to helping the problem. Obama needs to cut spending. Its not a revenue issue its a spending problem. The govt has NEVER used peoples money better than they can. I would love anyone here to give me just 1 example of something the govt has run better than the private sector. Also, there has NEVER been an instance when raising taxes has created a single job. When you raise costs of business they hire less, lay off or lower salaries. Socialism doesnt work
Why Socialism Cannot Work
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
The IRS is the only effective thing the government runs, and its because they are collecting our money. The post office for example is $15 billion dollars in debt because the gov't runs it, however UPS had $46 billion in revenue and $2.2 billion in profit last year. FexEx, DHL, etc all made billions too last year and every year. The private sector runs everything better than the govt, and Obama knows this, hes a smart guy. Yet he wants to expand the power and reach of the gov't because it guarantees votes for democrats for years to come by those they give money too.
"Obama wants to tax ppl making over a million which is not 'the wealthy'"
Epic fail. That is all.
"I would love anyone here to give me just 1 example of something the govt has run better than the private sector."
The military.
"Also, there has NEVER been an instance when raising taxes has created a single job."
Reagan raised taxes in the 80s and jobs were created. Same thing happened with Clinton. We can't forget that during the 50s to early 60s, tax rates for the wealthy were upwards of 90%. We still had jobs. As a matter of fact it was called the most prosperous time for the middle class.
"The post office for example is $15 billion dollars in debt because the gov't runs it, however UPS had $46 billion in revenue and $2.2 billion in profit last year. FexEx, DHL, etc all made billions too last year and every year."
The post office is running into debt because barely anyone sends mail anymore. We all communicate through email and social networking. You see that pile of mail you have on your counter? That's nothing compared the piles of mail that existed before the invention of email. It's not that the USPS has been ran to the ground. It's because of technology the service has started to become obsolete.
FedEx, UPS, and DHL have government contracts. A huge chunk of their revenue comes from the FED. Plus they deliver packages. You cant send a package instantaniously. The moment teleportation is invented, you'll see those companies start to lose revenue as well.
"I cant wait for the gov't to run my healthcare"
You're gonna have to move to Canada for that to happen. And even there it probably won't happen. Canada still has some private options. And the government doesn't even "run it". You and the doctor still make all your decisions. The doctor just sends the govt the bill instead of it showing up in your mail.
Per your story however, it seems both the professor and the students were confused on what socialism is. It's not supposed to be a "great equalizer". What the professor just experimented in was communist despotism where everyone gets exactly the same thing. That's not socialism. What would be socialism is if the professor told the students to not bring any books, paper, or pencils/pens to the class and he would provide it all. The means of producing the work is essentially owned by one body, the professor. But the OUPUT of the work is up to the student. OR, if the professor told the students to pull all their funds together to get the books, paper, and pencils/pens and let them all work together in groups for in all the tests and classwork.
THAT is socialism.
Not only that, the story can actually be used to argue against the free market in some instances. How? The Free Rider Problem. Your story is a classic case of that happening. The professor can represent a privatized public good in which everyone is supposed to benefit from. But since other students are paying into this and we'll all get the same benefit, others won't pay. Privatizing everything doesn't always work.
That being said, I agree that we have a spending problem. The point of contention is where the spending should be cut.
@Prissy
Can I ask one suggestion for you? Is it possible you can post in paragraphs? Nothing personal. It's just really hard to read your posts when they come in one wall of text.
What's good Great1? Prissy im just loving this heat... ok not really lol...but nonetheless having a pretty relax day, hope urs is good as well..
@ retaH_laibrevorP_ehT Exactly i don't understand why the right inconviently spew this misconception with socialist. either they're incredibly ignornant or just love spreading fear. I personally think it's the latter. There's no general equalization of everyone under socialism. It's an economic system that depends on the tradition of classical economics that says that the person who makes an object or provides the service owns that object or service and should profit from it. It doesn't necessarily prevent investing but it prohibits those that invest from owning what's produced and from siphoning off most of the profit from its sale leaving those who produced it with only a slim cut of the profit. Here are some facts i usually use when describing socialism. In a factory in a socialist economy, the managers make more than the assembly workers and the executives make more than the managers. Everyone's labor is respected and honored and paid for equitably not "equally" - based on the work they do and the responsibility they have, not the title or position they hold.
