because they realized (from USSR's failure) that they were following the wrong theory. and they started to care. That is why. but they still collect taxes ... much more than any taxes we have here .... and they are succeeding.....

Thanks again for proving another of my points. It is not proper taxes that hurt ... it is excessive taxes or no taxes which cause economic failure.

There is nothing wrong with how Our Nation is set up. The discussion is about what to do regarding the common interests and problems and how to fund the solutions to both issues.

The idea that the gov. should not care about the problems of the society is at the heart of the issue. I explained the reason behind that earlier. and you proved it. When the Gov leave the problems created by the weak-links unresolved, all of the society suffers. The first to suffer are the very rich individuals and corporations.

As long as there are people who still say that they dont care about others, this debate will continue to exist. They dont realize that their position undermines their own interests. The connection is real but they dont see it since they are not looking in the first place. .... they dont care .... why should they look? but they really should ... for their own and everyone's sake.

Today in the NY Times, there is a letter about this very point. The letter ends with this:" it's no coincidence that the Roman Empire had low taxes, small government, enormous concentration of wealth and overextended military at the time of its collapse"

the letter also points out this: " according to the CBO, the after-tax income of the top 1% rose 228% from 1979 through 2005 while middle-class earnings remained flat".

Any more proof needed that we are heading toward an "enormous concentration of wealth"?

Is that what we want to achieve considering the obvious consequences????

I dont think so. That is why we all should care. even if we dont like paying a little more in order to maintain and improve our standard of living and not undermine it.

the government does not improve the standard of living. not here not in china not in any country. people and companies improve the standard of living. we need less government involvement in every day life not more.


the federal government was not meant to interfer in the everyday life of people. it was meant to interfer in inter national affairs. and settle disputes between the states.


the states were supposed to be operating as separate nations united for a common cause.

the states are now operating like counties.

As I have reminded you previously, the federalist papers, written by Hamilton and Madison (who wrote the constitution) explicitly go into what they meant by the prhase "promote the general welfare".

They did not mean it as a transfer of funds from one individual to another. They meant it in the most general sense -- general welfare. Not individual welfare.

Look, I can't help it if you refuse to learn history or read up on this subject.  But if you're going to make posts on the subject, is it really too much to ask that you educate yourself on the basics before making arrogant responses about it?

Your argument doesn't even have a semblance of validity because you first have not even the most basic education on US constiutional history as you make clear and secondly you apparently have little understanding about the poor in the United States.

I remember back in 1996 when the Welfare Reform act was passed which changed the AFDC program (giving federal money to people who had children who were poor) it was people like you that made the same claims you're making now.  Except it didn't happen. The Poverty rate today is lower today than it was in 1996 despite the economy of 1996 being far better than it was today.

What I find appalling about your posts and responses on this topic is that you are so righteous even as you spew ignorance of breathtaking proportions.  We don't live in a country where motivated healthy Americans are living in poverty.  And yet you act as if we don't keep providing free stuff to the poor that our civilization will come to an end. As if people too unmotivated to just get a freaking job or too incompotent to take part in our economy are suddnely going to organize and bring down our society. 

Do you even know the poverty rate of people who work full-time? It's basically non-existent.  And there is no excuse for any able bodied person to not have a job.

Yes and thanks for demonstrating your ignorance again. The Roman Empire had massively high taxes and a huge beauracracy.  The Roman Empire has no analogy n the United States. People who actually debate these topics who are informed never would bring up such poor analogy. (Do you even know what % of our GDP is spent on the military? Oh, of course not, that would require that you educate yourself on a topic you're discussing).

Here, I'll even post the chart on it for you:

A pidly % of our GDP goes into military.

Try picking up a book on the history of the Roman Empire to at least learn different educated hypothesis's on what caused it to slowly disintegrate.

And?  AND what?  Do you know what causes income disparity in the first place? 

Do you know what causes disparity in general?

If you have three runners: One an olympic long distance runner. The other the average American. And the last an incredibly out of shape obese man. What do you think will be the distance difference between them over time?

Ut oh, the olympic runner's distance versus the average runner increased by 228%. That must be bad. We should tie a rope to him to help drag the other two guys. Then it'll be more "fair".

ThinkAloud, you really need to quit thinking in terms of ideology and start thinking for yourself.  Think about why things are the way they are free from politics.

No, the constitution says "General welfare" not common welfare. It is very debatable and has yet to be answered by any person to any degree of finality.

if the constitution had read the way you wanted it, then Congress would not be using the interstate commerce clause to make the laws it does. It would be using the clause you stated instead.

this is not a true analogy.


when the Olympic runner is tied to the other two runners part of their strength and energy is transfered to the Olympic runner. and the rope is stretchy

? I can assure you that taking taxes from the wealthiest is not in any way similar to having the middle class's strength transferred.

The analogy is that if you want to decrease income disparity, you basically have to have the wealthiest drag along the less wealthy.

this is true but as long as the wealthy can set prices. and i don't want it any other way.

The wealthy don't set the prices. Market forces do.

If I could set the price of my products, they'd all be $1 trillion each.

touche

but if your taxes are raised then you will raise your prices.

Great solution..... No one ever said we need more than that. and why 6 month? iwould do it as soon as they are offered jobs ... any job.



I dont think you really mean that. may be jailed and only if work was available and they refused to work. But what if there is no work for everyone? some will be willing and able but they cant find work. what do we do with them?

for that, i suggest we Make Work for them till things improve. .... just make them do something and get paid tell real work is available.



Again I gree if that is necessary and their parents are hopeless.

You know something LW ..... Your's is the only comment actually taking responsibility and trying to solve the problem.

comments that resort to insults and pretentions of knowledge is no way to discuss and solve probelms. It is a great way to avoid the main issue though .... isnt'it?

But the problems dont go away ..... they are there and need solutions

Thanks LW ..... i wish i can say this to many comments here .... but no chance to do it.

First time in my life ..... and it is not a small number of years ... that someone tells me that. They(everyone ... family, friends, coworkers, supervisors, ... etc)always say why do you always disagree with everything ... cant you for once go along?

I always respond by saying, I am not inventing things, it is all there and you guys are just ignoring the obvious.

Thanks Draginol .... for that comment and for the insults too.

The strange thing is i didnt use any particular ideology ... there is a problem and it needs a solution. i suggested one .... mere suggestion and said if it is stupid, well it is as best as i could do. please suggest more intelligent solution ... use whatever ideology or non-ideology. just please solve the problem.

and what did you offer Draginol? NOTHING.

nothing but insults and lots and lots of data. We, the poor ignorant NA members gave you all the authority you need and all we get from you are insults and data?

We are deposing you and replacing you with LW, she seems willing to offer some solutions. You are out Draginol .... just set and listen may be you learn something.

I wish insults would solve the problem. but they dont.... can an NA really afford to waste time on insulting someone who is suggesting a solution and open for revision or even replacement?

Does an NA have that kind of luxury?

no plotics needed to answer all these questions.

all you need is a brain and willingness and ability to solve problems ... societal problems ... not just software problems.

you could have used the time needed to write this response to think about and suggest and write a solution .... but you chose not to use the time productively ...

How unfortunate .... I dont think you would ever do that if this was a business issue.

And that is precisely the problem .... too many people do not think about the society as they do about things they are directly responsible for at work. they think the society is not their business .... let others do it .... politicians that is. and when politicians do what they think ... then we all criticise them ... vehemently .... with no idea or effort to formulate a coherent honest solution as we do every day in our jobs.

How unfortubnate indeed. That is not ideology ..... just commonsense.

What a response to a realistic and existing problem?

I, the ignorant and uneducated sugegsted something .... and what did you, the highly educated and intelligent, suggest? Nothing.

Dont assume too much Draginol, ..... you prove to me every day that .... well. I dont like to describe what you proved by this comment. you are trying to confuse the issue.... but i wont let you .... solve the problem if you are able to or just set and listen.

They say: lead, follow, or get out of the way ..... we dont need obstructions .... we have enough problems already.

i am sorry but nations did not replace city states for the benefit of all.


nations(empires) were started when city state A decided that city state B had better land to grow food on or what ever they decided was better at city state B.

yes sometimes city state b and city state c would ally. but that would only last as long as city state A wanted to attack city b or city c. or visa versa.

if city state a won the war the city b and/or city c would pay them tribute for a while.

eventually empires formed because the strongest city wouldn't let the others go be on their own. because they needed more men to take on other cities. and yes this process continued until you have an empire.


Rome was slightly different. in that when it took a city in the boot area. the romans made them roman citizens with all the rights of said citizenship. cities outside the boot were not treated that way.


and i have said this before. the roman empire did fall, but the roman government is still very much alive.