The Dudeism Forum

Reagan Vs. Obama - Social Economics 101

Check it out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8O7V-WxWQ&feature=youtu.be

Reagan and Obama Face-off in the Ring in "I Want Your Money" 

And - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Oj5DxlCOybE

The problem is that there would be no wealth with out a society to create it, or as Franklin put it:


All Property, indeed, except the Savage?s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages.

Ben Franklin 12 25 1783

The opposite of socialism is not capitalism, they co-habitate quite well, the opposite is Feudalism. The majority don't want to be ruled by John Gault anymore than they want to be ruled by Stalin. We seek a good balance between the two. Regan actually understood this, and by today's standards would have been called a socialist.

Reagan was so hipster he was for the Buffet rule before it was cool.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRuWMoEWE1E

Quote from: revgms on April 20, 2012, 01:59:55 PM
The problem is that there would be no wealth with out a society to create it, or as Franklin put it:

I would have to agree; but wealth can and is created by individuals within a society who, by creating wealth for themselves (hopefully in an enlighten responsible manner) create it for society as a whole.

I really don't see any calls for actual wealth redistribution, what has people upset is Exxon paying zero taxes, Romney paying 15% and the rest of us trying to eek out a living paying like 25-30%. Even the actual socialist party doesn't want to kill capitalism.

Everyone supports merit based compensation, the trouble is very many people can not get enough education or support to reach that bottom rung of the ladder. For libertarianism to really function as promised you would have to outlaw inheritance and make it illegal to have private schools. It only works if we all start from the same place with the same resources.

Like in Monopoly, everyone gets $1,000 and the same dice to roll, that's how it is fair, then it is up to guile and luck, but in real life, some are born owning Boardwalk and some are born owing rent on Park Place. There is no way for kids who were dumb enough to be born to poor parents to compete with the ones smart enough to pick rich parents.

Level the playing field, universal healthcare, equality of education(not necessarily identical, just equal), and require more of those that benefit the most from being part of society. Truth is wealth does not breed enlightenment, it by its nature has no use for equality, just like in Monopoly, the goal is to get the most with the least effort.

Capitalism is a cut throat affair, as it should be, it is a MMA cage match, as it should be, take no prisoners and offer no quarter. The trouble is, we removed the cage, they are now fighting among the audience. Bring back the cage and let capitalism do what it does, but it does not have any obligations to society, nor should it, that's what the cage is for.

as long as people keep their hands off of my stuff and the things that hold the room together (i.e. my rug and money and everything else) i really dont care. once they try to piss on my rug, then they have crossed the line in the sand and will be delt with like walter delt with thise in nam. dont fuck with me. if i want something, ill work or negotiate for it, if i cant work for it, i cant get it. im not gonna get a cadi if i got 63 cents in my bank account but if i work and negotiate, i can get 63,000 dollars so i can get the the cadi

Why don't we just go back to the Reagan era tax rates?

Oh that's right cause they would go up.

I think we may have to go to those higher tax rates because I doubt that budget cuts alone will be enough  to bring down the national debt.