Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale

[_cinepro]

What makes you think these programs aren't successful? They do exactly what they were intended to do, hence, they are very successful.

If your goal is to increase unemployment among poor black people, then I would agree that the minimum wage has been successful. That's not my goal, so I don't think it's been successful.

Your comment illustrates what I think is the biggest shortfall in much liberal thinking: it's one-step deep. You look at a program, see what looks like the obvious result, and think that's all there is to it. You don't consider the other costs and consequences incurred, or look at the whole picture.

Sure, Social Security and Medicare (and minimum wage) look successful, but I think when the wider costs and consequences are taken into consideration, they are catastrophic to our society in their current form.

[_ldsfaqs]

Well said Cinepro..... That's what they do with every issue, looking at the obvious and then making judgments while ignoring the details which makes clear why their ways don't work.

They don't understand that liberal ideology has NEVER been successful ANYWHERE.
And the only places it is a little successful is when tempered by conservative ideology, capitalism, freedom, etc. But even then, it's still not as successful as conservative ideology because those same country's or cities don't have any significant military, don't have any significant # of millionaires. etc.

The only places liberal ideology works is in fascist states. But even then it doesn't work because everyone ends up poor and brainwashed in some ideology save for the "elites" where the wealth is horded.

There is a reason why the U.S. has more millionares than ALL the world combined.

Of course, we've just heard the sad news that because of liberalism Beijing and Shanghai I think it was both now have more millionaires than Los Angeles, a city which used to have the most.

[_beastie]

Well said Cinepro..... That's what they do with every issue, looking at the obvious and then making judgments while ignoring the details which makes clear why their ways don't work.

They don't understand that liberal ideology has NEVER been successful ANYWHERE.
And the only places it is a little successful is when tempered by conservative ideology, capitalism, freedom, etc. But even then, it's still not as successful as conservative ideology because those same country's or cities don't have any significant military, don't have any significant # of millionaires. etc.

The only places liberal ideology works is in fascist states. But even then it doesn't work because everyone ends up poor and brainwashed in some ideology save for the "elites" where the wealth is horded.

There is a reason why the U.S. has more millionares than ALL the world combined.

Of course, we've just heard the sad news that because of liberalism Beijing and Shanghai I think it was both now have more millionaires than Los Angeles, a city which used to have the most.

Yeah, God knows that liberal Sweden is a hot mess.

[_cinepro]

Yeah, God knows that liberal Sweden is a hot mess.

There's nothing stopping any US state from adopting a Swedish level of taxation and emulating the Swedish level of government services. If that happened, do you think more people would move to that state, or out of it? Would you move there?

[_ldsfaqs]

Yeah, God knows that liberal Sweden is a hot mess.

Like I said, there ARE places it does work to some degree, but only because they are tempered by conservative ideology also. Even then though, they have no significant military, millionaires, per-capita, etc. etc., practically live an egalitarian lifestyle contributing little to nothing to the world or society, etc.

Sure, in society's that are stagnant, basically more "utopia" styled, sure liberalism works to a degree.

But..... You have another problem, they don't even close come to contributing knowledge, technology, medical quality and techniques, on and on to the world.

And "Sweden" is your shining example to world "progress" and quality? Please....

There is another problem with your shining example..... Conservatism has hundreds of examples of city's, countries, etc. that have lifted peoples quality of life, created wealth, distributed wealth far more than anything else.

You guy's like to talk "wealth distribution", it's an odd thing because Conservatism and Capitalism has "distributed wealth" FAR greater then anything else, especially liberalism.

No one is saying things can't be made better, they can, and it can be done in conservative ways. You don't fix things by going "backwards"..... like liberals want. Further, the only reason we have a health care problem in this country is because of liberal interference and takeover in health care. 50 years ago you could pay yourself to fix most health issues, but liberalism has caused this problem with their taxes, regulations, etc. So, you want to fix things by doing more of the thing that caused the problem in the first place???

[_beastie]

Yeah, God knows that liberal Sweden is a hot mess.

There's nothing stopping any US state from adopting a Swedish level of taxation and emulating the Swedish level of government services. If that happened, do you think more people would move to that state, or out of it? Would you move there?

Given the fact that Sweden has a high standard of living and has been rated one of the best countries to live in, yeah, I'd move there.

They've certainly bounced back from their recession faster than we have.

[_ajax18]

Given the fact that Sweden has a high standard of living and has been rated one of the best countries to live in, yeah, I'd move there.

Does Sweden enforce its borders?

[_Kevin Graham]

If your goal is to increase unemployment among poor black people, then I would agree that the minimum wage has been successful. That's not my goal, so I don't think it's been successful.

Yes, I'm sure you're, oh so concerned about unemployment among black Americans! But the fact is you're argument is pretty much the same argument the Confederate South used to defend the practice of slavery. After all, by ending slavery we put hundreds of thousands of black folks out of work, right?! But the fact is increasing the minimum wage has never been shown to increase unemployment.

Your comment illustrates what I think is the biggest shortfall in much liberal thinking: it's one-step deep.

Actually it isn't. You're making a bald assertion from what appears to be a gut feeling, and then projecting your pseudo-analysis onto me by claiming I'm the one who is only "one step deep." I have scientific data/analysis on my side, and studiessuggesting the minimum wage and its increases have no negative effect on employment. In most cases employment improved.

You look at a program, see what looks like the obvious result, and think that's all there is to it. You don't consider the other costs and consequences incurred, or look at the whole picture.

Are you prepared to make an argument or are you content to just sit there pretending to know what I'm seeing, thinking and inferring from any given "liberal policy"?

Sure, Social Security and Medicare (and minimum wage) look successful, but I think when the wider costs and consequences are taken into consideration, they are catastrophic to our society in their current form.

You "think"? Talk about going only "one step"! You have no argument based on evidence? You're content to assert what you "think" is true, and then expect me to just take it for granted while you hurl insults about what you think I understand? The fact is Social Security has dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly in this country since its inception. That is an established fact that no amount of rhetoric is going to overthrow. All you're left with now is the obligation to come up with some way to explain why saving the lives of millions of Americans and/or improving their quality of life, is something not worth the payroll taxes we pay into. You made the idiotic remark about these "liberal policies," so now instead of defending your claims by making an argument, you want to attack me for having a shallow understanding of the issues, suggesting I do nothing but jump to "one step" conclusions.

Social Security and Medicare both have been solvent, effective programs for many decades.

So the cure for monopolistic-minded influences on the health care system is to turn it into an actual government controlled monopoly?

Yes, because government isn't interested in quarterly statements and ever increasing profits (via increasing costs). By contrast, private corporations are only interested in this. That's why it is in their best interest for us all to be as sick as possible, and to pay as much as they can make us pay for basic health care.

But calling it a government monopoly is just dumb. This isn't what Obama has proposed - he proposes a single payer system while keeping the current private medical professionals providing the services - but I would be all for universal health care. After all, it works in other countries who don't have to worry about skyrocketing health care costs.

[_cinepro]

Yes, I'm sure you're, oh so concerned about unemployment among black Americans!

Of course I am. Why wouldn't I be? But honestly, I'm more concerned with the unemployment of teenagers since I have teenagers, which is also seriously influenced by minimum wage laws.

But if I didn't care about unemployment among entry level/ unskilled workers, then I honestly wouldn't care about the minimum wage laws. I don't pay anyone minimum wage and I don't earn minimum wage, so other than its effects on overall wage and price inflation, it doesn't really concern me.

But the fact is you're argument is pretty much the same argument the Confederate South used to defend the practice of slavery. After all, by ending slavery we put hundreds of thousands of black folks out of work, right?! But the fact is increasing the minimum wage has never been shown to increase unemployment.

It's called a "Price Floor", and if you can show that raising the price floor for labor doesn't effect demand, you would most certainly get a Nobel Prize in economics.

Of course, this only applies to the "unskilled" labor market. For jobs above minimum wage, it won't change much of anything. That's why you won't see a huge change in overall unemployment figures. But what do you see if you look at unemployment for unskilled/entry-level workers?

Hint: everyone knows this, which is why the minimum wage can only be adjusted to influence the poorest of workers. If the price floor were adjusted too high (say, to $20/hr, or $40/hr), then it would wreak havoc on the regular employment market, and suddenly it would influence the larger unemployment figure as employers scrambled to find cheaper alternatives for labor, be it outsourcing or robots or something else.



If you want to argue that the societal benefit of raising minimum wage a small amount (say, $.50) is worth the cost to society, that's fine. But to argue that there is no cost is absurd.

The fact is Social Security has dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly in this country since its inception. That is an established fact that no amount of rhetoric is going to overthrow. All you're left with now is the obligation to come up with some way to explain why saving the lives of millions of Americans and/or improving their quality of life, is something not worth the payroll taxes we pay into.

Obviously taking money from workers and giving it to retirees makes the retirees richer. How could it not? The problem is that the system is unsustainable. If our only concern is making old people rich, then we could make social security payments much higher, say, $10k/month. Why not? Then the program would be even more successful. And the government could just print money to cover any shortfall.

Yes, because government isn't interested in quarterly statements and ever increasing profits (via increasing costs). By contrast, private corporations are only interested in this. That's why it is in their best interest for us all to be as sick as possible, and to pay as much as they can make us pay for basic health care.

If only we had companies that provided health care and insurance that weren't focused on making a profit. We could even call them "un-profit" companies, or "zero-profit" companies, or maybe "non-profit" companies?

That's a great idea, and you should think about promoting it. You might even get another Nobel Prize for inventing the idea of a private company that isn't focused on profits. That's two prizes in one thread!

But calling it a government monopoly is just dumb. This isn't what Obama has proposed - he proposes a single payer system while keeping the current private medical professionals providing the services - but I would be all for universal health care. After all, it works in other countries who don't have to worry about skyrocketing health care costs.

It's an age-old axiom that any service has three components:

The Price of the service.
The Quality of the service.
The Speed of the service.

What countries are you thinking of that have a lower cost for health services while maintaining the quality and speed (i.e. length of time to schedule appointments and procedures) of the US system?

[_Analytics]

Fairy tale, or not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwg4DB-EeEA

I prefer this "critique" of that video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f6FZGjF8OA

It actually tells the facts and is honest.

I found that video to be quite ironic, because in unwittingly illustrated a couple of the main points of the video it was critiquing.

Specifically, the main video said that the 2008 economic crisis was caused by the rich people’s piles of money crashing onto everybody’s houses.

This isn’t an unfair symbol of what really happened: the fact is that the housing bubble and crash were caused by very wealth investment bankers who said they could turn crappy mortgages into AAA bonds, and a very wealthy investment community that gave them trillions of dollars because they believed them.

The video responds to this segment by claiming that rich people had nothing to do with the crash and that it was really caused by low interest rates from the federal reserve, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and of course the government forcing banks to lend to people who couldn’t afford it.

These lies about the cause of the crash are what the video meant when the rich people responded to the truth by trying to blame everything on other people: “look over there! Look over there!”