Posted by A Voice from the Mountains
(here)
Posted by Dennis Leahy
(here)
Really? So, only a "socialist" could make the argument that pillorying Cortez (that almost every response is in this thread has done) is a separate subject, rather than just examining the actual statements she made in the video in the opening post? This is truly astounding, because I made that very observation, and I'm not what any Marxist or political socialist would consider a "socialist." So, I guess you're wrong, and your first sentence appears to simply be an ad hominem.
No, I was commenting that the idea that someone would have to incorporate more socialist ideas into their posts in order to better convince you that she's nuts, would not result in any real persuasion, because you obviously already agree with those positions that you want to see more of.
Well, this is yet another topic that deserves its own thread. Ponder this:
- Option 1: Allow the crime syndicate to control the mechanisms (political parties, elections) to fill vacant seats of governance. Result: Virtually everyone in the system is a corrupt mobster, within a syndicate of mobsters. Self-fulfilling "prophecy." Loaded dice. Risk of corruption: 100%.
- Option 2: Apply a filtering mechanism to prevent corrupt mobsters from gaining office. Result: The highest-level syndicated corruption is broken. Individuals can be corrupted, (but if we the people were smart, we'd apply additional filters to prevent or minimize the corruptible from being corrupted.) The end result would be vastly less corruption, and critically, not syndicate-wide.
Both of these solutions rely on government to fix the government, yes?
Think outside of the box, Dennis. The founders had some different ideas about this. Have you ever read them?
Posted by A Voice from the Mountains
(here)
But what is supposed to be the horrible evil of a congressman who, for example, wants legislation to help an industry
and personally invest in that industry too? If it was to benefit a specific company, as often happens, then that's undermining competition. But if it's encouraging progress across a whole field, then how would that be bad exactly?
Um, conflict of interest? Are you familiar with the concept of someone "recusing" themselves? It's a high integrity move that publicly admits a conflict of interest or prejudice or inability to be objective, and fair.
Where is the crime in facilitating whole sectors of industry? Like I said, make a distinct here between helping
one company, which is corruption, and helping
a whole sector of the economy. According to your way of thinking, helping competing businesses all prosper, without distinction of one company over another, is somehow immoral or something.
If you cannot see that congresspersons owning stock in the military industrial complex corporations and then voting (non recusing themselves) for bills that enrich the congressperson via enriching the military industrial complex corporations is a bad idea, I doubt that any other example would help you understand it. It's called war profiteering in this context, but is basically simply stated as conflict of interest and sociopathic self-enrichment.
I think you missed the part of my posts about not enriching specific companies, which is cronyism. If your argument here is too broad, it would mean that improving the economy
at all can be construed as Trump having a conflict of interest. You realize that, right?
I would think that it's a lot easier and sneakier for congresspersons than presidents to get away with insider trading, as one example of corruption.
The reason insider trading is illegal is because it screws over the other stockholders investing in those companies, not because evil capitalists made money. It's a completely different issue from our most prominent citizens being allowed to make money from honest transactions while in office,
and even vote on business-friendly legislation that would help others as well as themselves.
Remember the old dichotomy of "service to self" vs. "service to others"? I once saw a very good argument that "service to others" should really state "service to
all," because it's not the point to abuse yourself just to show everyone else how great you are.
Posted by A Voice from the Mountains
(here)
Wanting a 70% income tax on the upper class is equally, if not even more stupid. I would prefer we left such policies to Europe, so we can suck all of the industry they have left off of their continent. I read articles in French economics all the time about some European company getting the shaft, and being undercut by some American contractor, on anything from tech services to military hardware. I think it's beautiful. But we don't enjoy that competitive supremacy by punishing our entrepreneurs by putting a ceiling on their returns.
"Entrepreneurs" is a disingenuous word to use for multinational corporate heads, military industrial complex corporation heads, and their major stockholders.
It would be disingenuous if that's who I was talking about, but those people don't pay taxes, so they obviously aren't who I was talking about, are they?
Small business owners are the ones that get screwed by high taxes. Start-ups, mom-and-pop businesses, etc. Those are the ones you stab in the gut with these 70% tax rates, not the bankers or military contractors, who use loopholes and offshore tax havens.
So what happens when you stick small business owners and entrepreneurs with 70% tax rates? Remember my thread on increasing unemployment and inflation in NY?
I know a lot of entrepreneurs, (none of whom are ever going to get within a light-year of the ultra-rich that you mischaracterize as the upper class.) Multimillionaires and billionaires are so far above the upper class in wealth that there is no comparison.
I didn't equate these two groups anywhere in my posts. If you read more carefully it's been very clear for a long time on here that I don't equate entrepreneurs and most business owners with the people who run the world.
You think your policies are aimed at Rothschilds and Rockefellers, and yet the only people you would end up destroying are employers and thereby the middle class. This is why socialist utopias don't have middle classes: only ultra-rich and ultra-poor.
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes The Dark Side Of Politics In 5 Incredible Minutes
Reply With Quote
not going to reply to the reply was the reply? Wow... I really thought I had the inside track on being obtuse in this thread...
Bookmarks