For help on how to follow a comic title,
PS: I’m done here. A government can not keep ahead of the dole recipients’ demands for more and better “free” stuff. No matter how much they try, the Dolists will insist on more. As the dole increases in individual level, more and more of the producers decide just to do nothing and register for the dole.
That cuts into the production base, and the downward economic spiral is inevitable. At some point (one that no one yet has successfully predicted) the Dolists become a mob that threatens the security of those administering the system (usually to their own profit), and the dole has to increase precipitously to keep the mob at bay. It’s what happened to East Germany and to the USSR.
Your entire set of replies reads, almost word for word, like an article about the US from Pravda or Xinhua. “Nothing but socialism and a centralized (IE: Communist) government ever has worked, ever can work, or ever will work. Capitalism is evil, and it only make the rich richer. Lo, the poor Working Man who never has anything! Poor, poor Working Man! The bad, bad, evil rich take everything they have!”
Notice that the average “poor” person in the US lives in a state of blissful luxury, compared to the poor in Russia, China, or North Korea, the Communist countries that over and over try to create the socialistic state where “everyone benefits equally from the labors of the masses”.
But they don’t. Take China as a classic example. Everyone has free education – to about a 3d-grade level in US equivalency. Or how about medical care? Well, yes, it’s free, if you can get to the clinic (not hospital or ER) on foot from 150 miles away before you die, to be seen by the equivalent of a US first responder who has little equipment and no medicine. And the only people who can break out of this rigid mold are those who have high-placed patrons who give them a hand up and open doors for them.
Socialism is not the be-all and end-all panacea you think it is, DD. As the USSR has rather emphatically proved, it is a downward spiral that inevitably ends in bankruptcy and social starvation. North Korea is next. China will follow before the end of this century. Socialism is doomed to failure because it stifles free enterprise, which (whether you like it or not) is the goose that inevitably lays the golden eggs. Human nature is that a person will not stir themselves to innovate and create unless they can see some personal reward for doing so. You can appeal to their sense of community all you want, but people want to succeed and move up the scale, not voluntarily give up everything they achieve so someone else (those in charge) can profit.
Bad social engineering (giveaways to the few richest elites who already have the most):
- Just who did you have in mind here? You mean the socialistic schemers who want you to pay all our money into a huge government-controlled pot so they can pillage it?
• Corporate welfare (socialism for the rich)
- Again, exactly who did you have in mind here? Or are you falling into the cavernous hole of shouting from the street-corner soapbox about generalities for which you can quote no examples?
• Socialized professional sports (all benefit goes to people that are very rich)
- Personally, I have no interest in professional sports. Many people do. It should be (andcurrently is) their inalienable right to go spend $1000 per scalper ticket to jam themselves into a packed sports arena to watch a rigged game. More power to those who have figured out how to stage the theatrics and get rich from it. It’s been around since the Roman Coliseum.
• Tax exemptions for churches that non-believers have to make up for (socialized religion)
- Oh, yes. You are, perhaps, talking about those evil organizations that, collectively, spend more money on actually helping the poor, the indigent, the sick, and those caught in disasters than all the expenditures of all the governments combined? And whose relief efforts actually get to those who truly need it? Shame on them.
Example of worst kind of bad social engineering (cited by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez): Trump has a country club / golf course in her district. It was developed with public funds, but HE gets to keep all the revenue.
Hey! I never said I like Trump. I only said I dislike him less than the sick sense of humor that can support the “hillary-ous” alternative.
• Guaranteed secure retirement program
- You mean like the dead-broke Social Security System that FDR installed and that a Democratic Congress raided to try and cover up how badly it had mismanaged the federal budget? The one that currently owes billions of dollars in scheduled payments that it can not meet because all that is in it’s kitty is the IOUs (Federal Bonds) that Congress left it?
• Job training, job placement
- This is covered nicely by commercial job search companies that get paid only after they find you a job. Someone who gets paid up front (government salary) has no real incentive to execute.
• Proactive social services to PREVENT crime
- Again, that absolute term. And shouting it. Social services does nothing to “prevent” crime. Police and courts can make crime very unattractive, but the current police and courts are so overwhelmed by special interests that they can not function properly. In addition, they are so over-ridden by those working the system to skim off cash that it is impossible to get any justice.
- Covered above.
• Law enforcement, firefighting, disaster relief
Okay. Like it or not, you insist on the concept that socialism has its merits. Consider the following:
There is good socialism and bad social engineering:- True. The following are good socialism: • Commonly-paid infrastructure that we all use. Even the poor use roads, and should pay their fair share. • Common services – police, fire, road repair, military, etc.
Good social engineering (helping those who actually need it):•This is an impossibility. There is no affordable method of determining, on an individual basis, that Mr. A does not need assistance while Ms. B does. Any form of system for mandated social transfer of money will inevitably be penetrated and subverted to put money into the hands of the middlemen. The only safe method of social monetary assistance is to get government out of the middle and let me contribute directly to the assistance of those I deem to be in need. Anything else is a money-pot waiting to be pillaged.
• Universal comprehensive no-fee health care
- This has proven itself to be self-defeating in every country that has tried it. Putting physicians and other health care workers into some sort of government-regimented system that enforces how much they can charge and how many patients they must see inevitably causes lackadaisical performance, flight of true skilled professionals from the country, and huge economic wastage as the government increasingly expands its efforts to control every minute aspect of the profession. It’s a money pit. And it results in substandard care. Always has, always will. Decry the US medical system all you want – it’s still the best in the world.
• Universal tuition-free public education through college
- Same song, second verse. Could get better, but it’s gonna get worse. So will every other socialistic program to government-control an individual’s personal efforts to contribute to society. Go read David Weber regarding Dolists.
Love the combination of zingers and quotes.
PROgressive tax rates (which Adam Smith supported): all people equal; not all dollars are equal.
+ This is the silliest statement ever. A dollar is a dollar. What pocket you put it in is irrelevant. You can not rob Peter to pay Paul, set a politician between to administer the transfer, and come out even, much less ahead. Progressive politicians have been raising this hue and cry since the early 1930s. “There is such a thing as a Free Lunch!”
No. No there is not.
And just for actual, verified information, during his administrations Franklin Roosevelt increased the national debt by a whopping 1048% (the most in US history), and Barack Obama increased it by 74% to the tune of an added $8.588 Trillion. And the so-called “PROgressives” claim these two were the greatest Presidents ever. How about a little fiscal responsibility, there, dude?
And further, asserting that the top 10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes also makes no sense by itself, without knowing that the top 10% of the population also own/control more than 95% of the wealth. So if they are only paying 70% of that 95+%, they are hardly paying their fair share.
+ This is a gross overstatement and generalization. First off, please quote your sources for any such claim “that the top 10% of the population own/control more than 95% of the wealth”. No one (other than ultraliberals who are convinced that the rich are conspiring to rob all the rest of us) ever has produced this claim, except to repeat it endlessly. In other words, you are repeating a lie, on the same basis as Joseph Mengels did so during WWII. “Repeat it often enough, loudly enough, and everyone will presume that it must be true.”
And you clearly have no understanding of PROgressive tax rate structures. PROgressive taxes treat all people the same. Every person pays the same rate on the portion of their income in equivalent brackets. You only pay higher rates on the PORTION in higher brackets. It treats all people the same, but recognizes that not all DOLLARS are the same. The first $20,000 is survival level. Every penny goes for the cheapest possible quality for housing, food and clothes. There is no discretionary income. At increasing levels of income, more discretionary income, higher quality, luxuries and savings are possible. And for those incomes over ten million, everything goes for the highest quality, the most opulence, savings, investments, luxuries, etc.
+ What you are describing is not a progressive tax. It is a modified, artificially-stratified tax structure designed to stultify investment and initiative in the name of “leveling the playing field”. It never has worked well in the entire history of government. Too many people find ways to hide their true income (like being paid in cash) while claiming benefits doled out from government.
Regarding the following, please see the embedded responses:
What you call “social justice” is leveling the playing field and emphasizing addressing problems of public health, safety, law and order PROACTIVELY
+ Please, don’t yell at us.
(to prevent them)
+ Proactivity does not “prevent” anything. The first thing to learn in producing your tiresome rants is not to use absolute terms like “prevent”, “everyone”, “nobody”, and the like.
more than REACTIVELY (responding to having to clean them up, which is invariably more expensive).
PROgressives emphasize the fence at the top of the cliff.
+ So if you are stupid enough to climb the fence someone put up and jump off a cliff, I should not call the first responders?
CONservatives emphasize ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.
+ Conservative thought (I’m not talking about the hard-right idiots) is to do both as well as to educate, not just trying to use social engineering.
And your whining about the proposed 70% top marginal rate (which only applies to the PORTION of income in excess of ten million) makes no sense. From the end of World War II to 1964, the top marginal rate was never lower than 90%, and from 1964 to 1981 it was never lower than 70%, and that period from 1945 to 1981 was the period of the greatest economic expansion and BROAD-BASED middle class prosperity in this nation’s history.
+ Once again, you tap-dance around the real issue to try and bash conservatives. MWalarius said nothing about the top 10% of earners. He said, and I quote: “10% of the population”. While his percentages may be off a smidge, it is the dwindling middle class that pays over 70% of the taxes. The “poor” pay almost nothing, and the rich are so few in number that even if you took 100% of their earnings it would amount to less than 0.01% of the annual government budgets. Progressive taxes do not work. They penalize the imaginative who succeed in establishing businesses.
Again, I have seen a Sears catalogue that advertised house kits and garage kits.