I can already imagine the ad hominem responses that are going to come (as well as the accusations that I am a 'dirty liberal'). Despite that, what are your thoughts? I do know this ought to make some blood boil around these parts. I completely and one-hundred percent agree with this. And no, unlike you, I do NOT trust society or an individual to pay it forward on his or her own accord, as we as humans have proven time and time again inclined to act selfishly. That is why I support reasonable government regulation (no our current gov't doesn't fall under my idea of reasonable) to help ensure this process. Can't wait for some of the responses.
This is too funny. I posted something a while back that was eerily similar to this, and it was also from reddit (http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/731784-some-food-thought.html) Apparently Krugman isn't too popular around here. On topic though, I think she makes a fair point. Like it or not, nobody is above the system. It's easy to point out what's "wrong" with that system, and it's especially easy to suggest radical solutions that have never truly been tested before. I'm not saying it's wrong or shortsighted to do so. It's just that "the grass always looks greener..." as they say.
The Underlying Social Contract is what gets me. I can't believe anyone would hold someone accountable for something beyond their circumstances to control. If we had the opportunity to build our own roads, hire our own police forces and whatever else she was blabbering about maybe I could understand their being a contract - because you would have a choice. Unless you voluntarily agree to something there is no contract. Saying it's 'Underlying' and 'Implicit' is what the mafia says when they show up for 'protection' money. It's thuggery. Participation simply because the other options are imprisonment, the end of a gun or living like a gypsy does NOT imply agreement or support.
Statists will do anything to try & justify their system of theft, I mean, taxation. We're not making a "grass is greener on the other side" argument. Many of us argue from an ethical standpoint. Didn't your parents ever teach you that stealing is wrong? Also, when did I sign this social contract? If I didn't, what's the difference between the feds & the mob? An election process that decides on ~537 elected officials of the several million people employed by the government? God, the difference is so striking. How did I not see it before! Finally, good job to whoever made that rebuttal in photo form. I saw the OP's pic on the front page of reddit last night. I had a good chuckle. I also anticipated a thread being created on here about this.
I think its non-sense to believe that if people were not "paying it forward," there would be no education, there would be bands of marauding thugs stealing everything, that a fire would never be put out, and that people would not build roads. Government does not prevent fire, government does not prevent violent robbery, and government just barely provides a shitty education. If business' did what the government does, not a single person here would stand for it. If a cable provider stole your money, but then gave you some basic channels to watch on tv, would you be cool with it? The statists response to that is. " But these are things we NEED so the government must provide it." Sooooo If a supermarket stole money from your paycheck, but gave you food at a marked up price, would you not bitch about that? Would you not wish you were free from theft so you could pursue better options? Of course you would, and surely you dont need roads more than food. Statists think that life is so complicated, they think they danger is lurking around every corner, and that government is the sole entity keeping it at bay. They are under the delusion that they cannot possibly organize society efficiently. So they give up power to a higher authority (the state) in order to absolve themselves of the burden. All the while they have forgotten that these authority figures are no better suited to the job than anybody else. @ Cream .... You admit that you cannot rely on people to pay it forwards themselves. Yet you expect some sort of success from organizing a society based on doing exactly what you said you canot count on them to do. My question is, why do you want to base a society on artificial principals that you admit don't exist naturally among us? Why do you think thats better than allowing society to organize itself based on its wants and needs? My answer is that statists want to make people out to be something they are not, that have an image of what human beings should, and will be. Since reality does not align, they resort to violent force (government) to see that at least the illusion of this society exists. I would however, love to hear your answer.
Nobody except of course the people running the system. They will almost always put themselves above it.
She does raise a good point, reminded me of this: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso]What have the Romans ever done for us - YouTube[/ame] I agree that the U.S. Government may have done some good things with the money they have taken away from it's people. But how much of it has been lost due to failed projects, government waste, bureaucratic salaries, and wars fought both foreign and abroad? I think, we could have built a much more self-sufficient society if it weren't for the state and federal governments profiting off of everyone's paychecks and purchases.
Yeah businesses don't pay their share at all. I mean a huge portion of the population doesn't pay any taxes at all, or get negatively taxed. Business owners already pay the highest percentage of any group. With federal, state, and other taxes they easily pay 40+%. So they already give FAR more than any other group of people. So there's that. They also employ people, provide jobs for many directly and indirectly. Those employees in turn make money also, which is also taxed. Even if the business owners don't expand their business and just spend their money. That expenditure is also taxed, and it goes right back into the economy anyways and creates more demand for whatever they buy, and in turn causes more profits for those businesses who can then expand and hire more employees. Or, the owners of business can simply save their money, this is least likely to happen though, since why wouldn't you want to expand your business and make more money? Unless excessive regulations and taxes makes it an environment that is too risky to even hire more people. In that case it makes more business sense to export your jobs overseas. Again, this is government caused. Anyways they can save their money. Savings encourages lower interest rates, in a real way though, not artificially like the Fed does in our planned economy. These lower interest rates represent less demand for money and more demand for goods. Thus freeing up capital for use by other businesses to use in productive, economy growing ways. Not wasteful spending like the government does. Also the more money businesses have the more they can spend to improve manufacturing processes and efficiency. The more efficiently something can be made, the cheaper the cost becomes for both producer and consumer. This is how the overall standard of living of everyone is improved. This doesn't happen in government spending because there is no free market competition to the government. Competition is what improves our lives, government spending is a parasite on true economic growth. But no, according to the fascists they aren't doing their fair share. According to the fascists these vital growers of the economy, the truly driven people, the smartest and most innovative of our society, in terms of economy at least, should be punished even more. Instead of being rewarded for doing a valuable service to their country, they are vilified and have a lot of their earned property confiscated by force. And there's any wonder why businesses are more and more moving overseas?
i think that's what she's assuming.. factory owners not paying taxes would be the only thing that would make what she said even semi valid.
people seem to correlate business and corporations with these giant multibillion dollar multinational operations.. and we always here "they can afford a bigger tax bill" they forget about small business, which are really getting crushed with rising cost of goods and taxes.
^^ yup.. people just need to remember when they scream to tax the evil corporations, this also includes the little restaurant, barber shop, ice cream joint etc.. those little guys employ a hell of a lot more people than the big guys.. and never get bailed out
She screwed up making it an us vs them argument, shit she's in the same damn "class" as the Factory Owner she's railing against. Cute little political soundbites are nice, but they really just make her look like an asshole. The Factory owner he paid taxes too, he also paid for the land, the taxes that come with owning property, the construction, the supplies, the equipment, the roads, the shitty educational system, the shitty police, the fire fighters, the worker's wages, and the manager's wages. All the while working hours upon hours to turn a profit while dealing with losses, thefts, unions and higher taxes that come with owning a business and making money off of it. Then when he's finally able to enjoy what he's earned, he's got Warren with an imaginary "Social Contract" with his imaginary signature on it with her hand out waiting for more. "Give "Us" ie Government more, be a good person, help a new generation" Meanwhile the roads are getting shittier, the infrastructure in this country is falling apart, police are becoming more authoritative, and the fire fighters want to close down his business. Nothing is really being done at all to fix these problems, instead his taxes are going to help pay for the previous generation's health and SS bills or its off to pay for the bullet in the brain of some child in Afghanistan. But the government they just want more and more, to spend more and more, and with no real sign of stopping ever. We're leaving our children and their children's children with massive amounts of debt, how is that helping the generations in front of us again? How about we fix that first, then we'll see about contributing more to a fucked up system.
Yes it's mainly small businesses that are hurt the most, by design. The big corporations introduce regulations to make it harder for small businesses to survive. All of the different industrial complexes do it. Then you have inflation also, which benefits only those corporations that get loans directly from the government or directly through Fed channels. These are obviously the same corporations who benefit from the regulations that crush small businesses. What we have is not free market capitalism, it's crony capitalism, fascist corporatism, etc. It's so sad that capitalism gets blamed for the bad economy and more intervention is seen as the solution, when intervention is the very problem itself. It's a vicious self perpetuating cycle that is about to come to a violent end.