Guru
The republicans seem to be fine with the "entitlement" spending known as our wars on abstractions, or corporate welfare; the only "entitlement" spending they seem to have a problem with is for We the People who can't afford to purchase tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through.
Correspondent
Thats a load of bull. the democrats AND the establishment republicans gave the biggest corporate welfare handout we've ever seen as a country in the TARP finance bill.Originally Posted by danielpalos
They're not loopholes. They're supposed to be subsidies that lower the price of energy (ethanol and gasoline). However, the way they are structured (and with how energy inefficient ethanol is) its no longer necessary.
entitlement spending is different from subsidies because subsidies are discretionary spending. Congress can change spending levels any year it wants.
Meanwhile, welfare programs for the poor and the elderly are based on long-term entitlement formulas that result in sky-high costs (due to baby-boomer retirees). These true entitlement programs have long term negative effects on our government finances ($10-30 trillion unfunded benefits in the next several decades). Meanwhile, since our establishment politicians (BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS) have taken money from social security surplus every year, the trust fund is basically close to empty. As the program reaches permanent deficits in the next decade, it will only add to the growing list of welfare obligations as well as our pension crisis for federal workers (another $3-10 trillion).
I personally oppose corporate subsidies, but turning this into a class war is exactly what the democrats want. If they get their way, we'll increase spending on entitlements (the more we spend, the more addicted many in our society to supporting them), cut a few corporate subsidies, and still continue to increase spending.
The answer ultimately lies away from the suggestions of both the Democrat and Republican establishments. Eliminating subsidies are good because its not really a tax raise, its ending federal funding for those programs. However, we do need to cut entitlement spending, especially reform it (maybe look to the privatization proposals by Clinton and the Republicans in the 90s?)
"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself."
-John Locke
Analyst
That's fine, but it doesn't answer the question ... unless you're advocating doing away with the amendments and returning to the original Constitution as written? I'd be willing to listen if you'd take the time.
Agreed. both sides of The Party have their pet spending projects and neither seem willing to really cut each others' spending programs. The result is ever more spending, ever larger power grabs, and ever-growing government.
Washington should only be allowed to do that which only Washington can do.
Guru
Our wars on abstractions are also forms of entitlement spending. Why not end those forms of boondoggles and generational forms of theft during times of lowering taxes? While I can understand democrat reluctance due to union involvement, the republicans offer no such "compassion" regarding unions or the standard of living they can engender.
Guru
Repealing everything after our Bill of Rights would be ok as far as I am concerned since our Founding Fathers really did do that good of a job at the convention with out federal Constitution. In my opinion, all subsequent generations have done is simply waste paper.
Correspondent
The Republicans have continued to ask for a social security lockbox on the fund (to prevent your "generational theft"). They've also tried to reform Social Security into a system similar to a 401k, based on the market (privatization). Its been demonized so much by democrats that its now somehow equivalent to "taking away social security." The republicans continue to propose solutions but the democrats sit around doing nothing but criticizing the GOP proposals.
We already have the highest condition of life in the world. Many of our poor have appliances like TVs Computers etc, as well as cars. They also have cell phones as well, funded by welfare payments and unemployment benefits. If we reduced union involvement, labor costs wouldn't be so high, and states like Detroit would be able to attract additional manufacturing jobs. Companies no longer think its cost effective to pay for unionization when they could outsource to third world countries (with no national min wage and no unions).
"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself."
-John Locke
Guru
Why not enact public policy which better conforms to existing infrastructure and existing laws? Our elected representatives seem too eager to create more laws and regulations and almost make it seem like they are bucking for salary increases or bonuses based on the amount of legislation they can produce regardless of whether or not it actually promotes and provides for the general welfare and common defense.
Our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution only applies to the US. Why compare us with less developed economies when discussing our own economy. You are welcome to apply your line of reasoning to a relevant form of special pleading concerning our own republic.
Here is something to consider:
Relative poverty within the US exists and should not be compared to less developed economies which do not have our federal Constitution.In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year.
The chart below shows the ratio of the average annual compensation of CEOs—including all bonuses, incentives, and so on*—to the annual compensation of a full-time, full-year minimum wage earner (assumed to receive an average amount of benefits).
This extreme compensation ratio reflects both the extraordinary growth of CEO pay and also the diminishing value of the federal minimum wage that has not been raised since 1997: adjusting for inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest since 1955.
The ratio wasn't always so extreme. As recently as 1978, CEOs were paid only 78 times as much as minimum wage earners.
Source: http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20060627/
Correspondent
CEOS attended Business school, obatined MBAs, etc. they have more valauble skills than lower paid workers. Thats why they're paid more. Its the basis of the merit-based capitalism.
Even if everyone's standard of living were increased 5 fold, there would always be some people that have less than others. THAT is your "relative poverty." Our Dec of Independence stated that All men were CREATED Equal. All men have the Right to PURSUE happiness. Our nation doesnt guarantee everyone is equal at the end of the day after the hard work is done, or that everyone reaches happiness, but we give everyone opportunites to aim for their goals. THAT is American values at work.
"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself."
-John Locke
Guru
I am glad you stopped comparing us to less developed economies regarding relative poverty.
Participant
I agree, there will always be rich and there will always be poor. The problem we are entering into is the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap between the two is widening and at some point it must lead to the collapse of our government. Look at any great civilization that had a fall, it happened when they lost balance and the country was basically made up entirely of rich or poor – no middle class, this is where we are heading. Since 1960 the cost of living has risen in the neighborhood of 10 times (1000%) while income has only gained less than 4 times (375%). We, as a people, need to bring common sense back into government, that basis laid down by our forefathers was amazing we need to get back to the intent of that government. They were wise enough to make our Constitution a “Living” document – let’s not kill it but let us look into making it stronger.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks