by Sixstrings » Sun 11 Dec 2011, 03:31:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'I') see.
So we need more welfare state to prevent more welfare state? Sometimes your illogically formed statements defy any effort to unscramble them.
No.. the welfare state is only necessary because the People are so poor. That's perfectly logical, Cog. Just like revolutionary France, "let them eat cake" was a funny quip
but fact remained the People were hungry because the rich had it all the damn money.I know what you'd really like to see -- those who can't afford bread don't eat. That's Libertarianism. But in reality, modern Western governments aren't just going to let people starve -- it's a Big Ag support if nothing else Cog, just like the school lunch program.
If the vampire squid rich suck all the money out of the system and hoard it in paper Forex games and Zynga Farmville stock, then money must come from somewhere to feed people.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')aking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work, won't work, and shouldn't be done even if it did work.
Yeah whatever, Reaganomics and trickledown, that's what you're saying. Bottom line.. rich have all the money, it's got to be redistributed somehow. A frickin consumer market can't even work Cog if the shoppers don't have enough money.
This can be easily accomplished -- tariffs, bring jobs back, double the minimum wage to therefore raise all wages. TAX THE RICH just like we did in the 1960s.. you could tax them 90% just like the 60's, life would go on just as it did in the 1950s and 1960s. We would have fewer billionaires sure, but in their place there would be a broad middle class and working class with livable wages.
(we needn't even be as radical as 1950s America, we could just be a bit more like Canada or Australia the poor and working class here would be able to afford their own food again..