Hey Blown here is something we might agree on.

[Rexone]

The current debt is growing faster than current taxation can pay. In the end, we will either bankrupt the country or put our children in the position of blanket taxation that could literally destroy their opportunities to pursue the good life.
I agree with that statement. But perhaps government should consider getting their spending under control rather that just keep spending more and increasing taxes to cover it. I know that's what I have to do in my business to stay in business. I can't just keep raising prices to cover increased spending for stupid shit. The government shouldn't be able to just increase taxes at will to cover their ass for spending on stupid shit either.
There are many many programs wasting our tax dollars. Billions going to countries overseas that would just as soon slit American's throats as not. More billions misguided into freebie welfare type programs here at home, missing the mark on those who "really" need the assistance. Billions more supporting illegal immigrants and all the programs they suck up. It would be far cheaper to enforce illegal immigration (existing law) than continue to support immigrants already here not to mention basically supporting policies that just invite more in.
This all in addition to the very real and dangerous national security situation the open border problem has created.
The government (not partisian because they're all guilty) need to get their spending under control, not tax the shit out of the people more than they already are to cover all of the above. So I'm not going with the increased taxes being a patriotic duty. The government already takes half my income at least through various form of taxation. Anything beyond that imo is just veiled socialism.

[QuickJet]

So how is adjusting the minimum wage for inflation adding more government?
The government would be emplimating the law wouldn't they? Why can't the private sector take care of how much the "going wage" is? Why is it that the government thinks it needs it's hand in every little thing we do. They don't need to tell me how much I have to pay an employee. And it's not just the wages that go up, it's the social security tax and the insurance as well.
Pelosi is callijg for a 40% increase in minimum wage. A small buisiness with minimum wage employees' will be forced to lay off and fire people to stay afloat. That or increase it's prices which we will all feel.
Keep the government out. If someone doesnt' want to work for $5.50 an hour they can always got to In-n-Out burger where they start at $9.25 (Government didn't make them start people that high either)

[Rexone]

The government would be emplimating the law wouldn't they? Why can't the private sector take care of how much the "going wage" is? Why is it that the government thinks it needs it's hand in every little thing we do. They don't need to tell me how much I have to pay an employee. And it's not just the wages that go up, it's the social security tax and the insurance as well.
Pelosi is callijg for a 40% increase in minimum wage. A small buisiness with minimum wage employees' will be forced to lay off and fire people to stay afloat. That or increase it's prices which we will all feel.
Keep the government out. If someone doesnt' want to work for $5.50 an hour they can always got to In-n-Out burger where they start at $9.25 (Government didn't make them start people that high either)
I agree the government should butt out on min wage. Capitialism would control it just fine and dandy. People would be paid what they're "worth" in terms of skills and abilities and not what they're "told" based on what government thinks, basically giving losers and those who choose to not become skilled a free ride.
I don't know where the government thinks the money to pay more min wage is going to come from other than the end user of the product or service. No one wins there. Instead of a McDonalds burger costing $3 it will be $5. It's a never ending cycle when government sticks their head where it doesn't belong. Next the wage will need to increase again so people buying the $5 burger can afford to eat. No one wins or gains a thing.
Government should govern and protect, and butt out of business. Otherwise lets just convert to socialism and government can tell us when to wipe our ass and when not to too and how many squares of paper is acceptable.

[Poster X]

Actually socialism in it's true form IS the answer. It's one of those words that's been thrown around and misused for centuries. It's gotten to the point where the definition has changed due to misuse. Kind of like "moot" (which pisses me off and is a personal pet peeve). Anyway, true socialism by definition has never been tried. That's why it's denoted as utopian socialism or altruism. I guess we can blame the Soviets for really misusing the word and changing it's literal meaning? Socialism (by definition as originally scripted) allows for entrepeneurialism and capitalism. The government takes care of the lower classes and they can break free at will and pursue the American dream or they can stay in the system and just get by. The government isn't supported by taxation. It's supported by monopolized industry. This keeps checks and balances on both sides of the income scale. If our "Democracy" is to mature and grow strong into this millenium it has to evolve to protect the people, reduce taxation, and eliminate ultimate corporate greed (monopolization). That "next" logical step is indeed... Socialism.
There's a certain amount of justice in Wal-Mart and Exxon supporting the government eliminating taxation and allowing us the financial freedom to pursue the ultimate American Dream, entrepeneurism.
Take some oxygen and xanex before you respond.

[QuickJet]

Actually socialism in it's true form IS the answer. It's one of those words that's been thrown around and misused for centuries. It's gotten to the point where the definition has changed due to misuse. Kind of like "moot" (which pisses me off and is a personal pet peeve). Anyway, true socialism by definition has never been tried. That's why it's denoted as utopian socialism or altruism. I guess we can blame the Soviets for really misusing the word and changing it's literal meaning? Socialism (by definition as originally scripted) allows for entrepeneurialism and capitalism. The government takes care of the lower classes and they can break free at will and pursue the American dream or they can stay in the system and just get by. The government isn't supported by taxation. It's supported by monopolized industry. This keeps checks and balances on both sides of the income scale. If our "Democracy" is to mature and grow strong into this millenium it has to evolve to protect the people, reduce taxation, and eliminate ultimate corporate greed (monopolization). That "next" logical step is indeed... Socialism.
There's a certain amount of justice in Wal-Mart and Exxon supporting the government eliminating taxation and allowing us the financial freedom to pursue the ultimate American Dream, entrepeneurism.
Take some oxygen and xanex before you respond.
Socialism has NEVER worked and it never will. A system that mearly allows capitalism and entrepeneurialism can also strip it away. Another problem is the lower classes will never break free. All it is is a redistribution of wealth under GOVERNMENT CONTROL. We need to eliminate government involvement all together. We also need to engage in the flat tax system. Doing so will eliminate the underground economy that plageus us all. And democracy doesn't protect us, we protect it.

[Poster X]

Flat taxes aren't going to do a thing about government corruption. It's still there like a moose head hanging on the wall. You don't know if socialism would work or not. It's never been tried. The soviets were totalianaryistic, not socialist. People use the name but the true concept has never been excercized beyond a few half hazard conversations in some obscure think tank. Don't think Orwellian. That's also totalianaristic and fascist. It is by design..less government.

[QuickJet]

Flat taxes aren't going to do a thing about government corruption. .
I'm not worried about government corruption. It's governemnt "involvement" that I have a problem with.

[eliminatedsprinter]

So how is adjusting the minimum wage for inflation adding more government?
That is not what I was getting at.
My comment was not directed at your support of a minimum wage, but rather your overall naivete in regards to the inherent problems of too much government.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually socialism in it's true form IS the answer. It's one of those words that's been thrown around and misused for centuries. It's gotten to the point where the definition has changed due to misuse. Kind of like "moot" (which pisses me off and is a personal pet peeve). Anyway, true socialism by definition has never been tried. That's why it's denoted as utopian socialism or altruism. I guess we can blame the Soviets for really misusing the word and changing it's literal meaning? Socialism (by definition as originally scripted) allows for entrepeneurialism and capitalism. The government takes care of the lower classes and they can break free at will and pursue the American dream or they can stay in the system and just get by. The government isn't supported by taxation. It's supported by monopolized industry. This keeps checks and balances on both sides of the income scale. If our "Democracy" is to mature and grow strong into this millenium it has to evolve to protect the people, reduce taxation, and eliminate ultimate corporate greed (monopolization). That "next" logical step is indeed... Socialism.
There's a certain amount of justice in Wal-Mart and Exxon supporting the government eliminating taxation and allowing us the financial freedom to pursue the ultimate American Dream, entrepeneurism.
Take some oxygen and xanex before you respond.
You know it is funny, but I used to think like this too.
But that was over 50+ units of history and social studies coursework (I found the courses that the history and sociology majors had to take made easy and interesting electives while I was in college) and 24 years of government service ago. I don't have nearly enough time to explain why the above is misguided. But I will state that if you had a better working knowledge of history you would know better.
Come on, think it through.
Do you really think you and the people you read are the only ones who have had the above ideas on socialism? The ideas you have expressed above are hundreds of years old, do you really think good people and societies haven't made honest efforts at implementing them in the past???
P.S. The more history I learn and the longer I work in government, the less socialistic and the more libertarian my political views become. But hey, that's just me. Don't let me rain on your self indulgent utopian dream parade. :wink:

[cdog]

You know it is funny, but I used to think like this too.
But that was over 50+ units of history and social studies coursework (I found the courses that the history and sociology majors had to take made easy and interesting electives while I was in college) and 24 years of government service ago. I don't have nearly enough time to explain why the above is misguided. But I will state that if you had a better working knowledge of history you would know better.
Come on, think it through.
Do you really think you and the people you read are the only ones who have had the above ideas on socialism? The ideas you have expressed above are hundreds of years old, do you really think good people and societies haven't made honest efforts at implementing them in the past???
P.S. The more history I learn and the longer I work in government, the less socialistic and the more libertarian my political views become. But hey, that's just me. Don't let me rain on your self indulgent utopian dream parade. :wink:
+1000000000000000000000000000000
Excellent post