(February 1, 2018 at 10:02 am)shadow Wrote:(February 1, 2018 at 9:29 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I'll take a libertarian over a Missouri good ol' boy classic conservative any day. And vs Trumptards, there is no contest. Forget about Rand. People forget his dad was often more vocal against the Republicans than the Democrats (at least on certain issues).
Rather than having our classic Democrats and Republicans (who really both serve Wall Street), I think our congress would be better divided Libertarians vs Socialists. If these latter two parties could meet each other half way, we'd have a better functioning congress.
I'd love that. I think both socialism and libertarianism can produce functional governments. While I personally prefer libertarianism, socialist governments can work quite well from my experience. Right now I'm living in Denmark, and here they are very socialist (even moreso than Canada, where I'm from), but it works for them, so I don't think it's a valueless ideology. I just prefer more independence, individual accountability and the free market myself, because I think it's more efficient.
Um no, it isn't "socialism" or "libertarian", but checks on power. Over long periods economies change, and power can become lopsided to any label, so it is a matter of constant checks on power and adjustments to keep any type of monopoly from arising. I think that concept even gets lost on even some of my fellow liberals.
I can only speak right now of what is not working. We are borrowing as a government in the form of tax breaks for the top, and that debt adds up, and eventually the rest of us have to pay for it. Huge example is how 45 talks of trains and roads and bridges, and wants 1.8 trillion to fix it. GREAT sounds great, but if the tax on the rich gets cut and exceeds the taxes the rest of us pay, who will need up paying for that long term debt?
Now if we were doing things right like we used to between 48 to 1980, we see that while there were still dips, we avoided major bubbles in that time. Maybe in the future a tax break for the top would work or might be needed, but for the next couple decades, to continue exploding the debt and pay gap, is insane.
Social safety nets such as a basic living wage if one wants to appeal to a business, if that owner says, my costs cannot exceed a certain labor/material/profit ratio, then why would the cost of paying for a roof and food and medical and education and to be able to save in addition, why would that be any different? It still amounts to bringing in a ratio above being in the red to make it possible to make gains. Currently however, the GOP and even Libertarians are offering the bullshit to workers, "Just work longer for less and trust greedy people."
Social safety is not the communism of Stalin's Russia or Castro's Cuba. "Taxes are robbery" are the other bullshit extreme. The truth of long term stability to me, is a mixed economy that PROVIDES and considers the needs of the workers, whom, are the real job creators because any business owner will tell you, they wont hire one more person than needed unless demand forces them to. That demand isn't coming from the top 1% but the rest of the middle and bottom classes.
I am for the private sector, just not "too big to fail". I am for the private sector, just not monopolies. I am for wealth, just not greed. I just see right now, corporations being abusive.
