Not usually involved in political talks here but....

[EspressoBuzz]

From an economic standpoint there basically isn't a difference. They both find capitalism incompatible with their objectives. 

 

 

I don't know where you got your facts both they are different and they are compatible with capitalism as anyone who has read The Wealth Of Nations can tell you. While capitalism can be very good Adam Smith warned against the concentration of wealth in the hand of a few as it can skew the system and cause imbalance.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I don't know where you got your facts both they are different and they are compatible with capitalism as anyone who has read The Wealth Of Nations can tell you. While capitalism can be very good Adam Smith warned against the concentration of wealth in the hand of a few as it can skew the system and cause imbalance.

Communism and democratic socialism are compatible with Capitalism? How did the capitalism work out in the communist nations from the 50's through the 90's? By definition they require heavily regulated or even controlled economic models Edited February 17, 2016 by Culvercreek hunt club

[wildcat junkie]

Isn't Mexico a "capitalistic republic"? Have a good look boys because if the GOP gets their way, that's going to be our economy. But at least then they'll put people back to work.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Isn't Mexico a "capitalistic republic"? Have a good look boys because if the GOP gets their way, that's going to be our economy. But at least then they'll put people back to work.

. There is one small difference and it is just a piece of paper. Probably why so many have fought to maintain it for so long.

[ants]

Isn't Mexico a "capitalistic republic"? Have a good look boys because if the GOP gets their way, that's going to be our economy. But at least then they'll put people back to work.

What nations, socialist economy would work best for the U.S.??? In your opinion...

[Marion]

Ants you may want to rearrange your punctuation there, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, and if I understand your gibberish correctly, I wholeheartedly agree socialism in the US will be the last nail in this once great country's coffin

You Can't Beat My Meat!

[wildcat junkie]

What nations, socialist economy would work best for the U.S.??? In your opinion...

 

So by your post you think that Mexico's economy would be better than say Canada's?

Edited February 18, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

. There is one small difference and it is just a piece of paper. Probably why so many have fought to maintain it for so long.

 

According to the "Constitutional scholars" on this site there should be no controls on the concentration of wealth.

[Huntscreek]

Junkie See what you did there Oh the Spin. The Conversation was on Sanders and you pull Trump into it. You did exactly what you media and your party does, switch the focus. I feel no need to stick up Trump, You and your party seem to be doing just Fine with that. I've watch your post on Obama how can you say after 7+ years this country is better off. Convince me how you think Bernie or Hilary would leave the USA Better off. Remember Hillary Said she is running on Failed Obama policy, and his legacy. Bernie is running on Socialist ideology. Spin away Woof Woof     

[wildcat junkie]

 I wholeheartedly agree socialism in the US will be the last nail in this once great country's coffin

 

 

Bernie is no more socialist than Eisenhower & he presided over some of the most vibrant economic growth of the middle class. It was also a period of rapid scientific/industrial development and our public education system was the envy of the world.

 

The Koch family called him a communist too, but his tax policies encouraged reinvestment in factories & technology as well as paying a good wage..

 

 

 

 

 

Industrial pioneer Henry Ford recognized the folly of repressing wages & the detrimental effects on economic growth associated with those policies.

 

 

 

Even today, those that are not consumed by greed realize that it isn't the rich, but the lower income wage earners that are the true job creators.

Edited February 18, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[The_Field_Ager]

  Anyone think they will really become better educated if higher education is free too?

 

We get a lot of 'scholarship' students who get a free ride because of the 'diversity' and adversity of their backgrounds. All part of the drive for college to be more inclusive and so forth. These are the students that are generally the most feckless and disinterested in even being in the building. I guess they figure that because they have a free ride, they will get a free degree. It's alwasy amusing to be confronted by failing students who can't understand that not turning up for class or doing any work could possible result in F's. But this is the attitude being inculcated and encouraged in many young folk these days. Gone are the days of 'C's = Degrees'. They can't even be bothered to do that much.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Papist

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Bernie is no more socialist than Eisenhower & he presided over some of the most vibrant economic growth of the middle class. It was also a period of rapid scientific/industrial development and our public education system was the envy of the world.

 

The Koch family called him a communist too, but his tax policies encouraged reinvestment in factories & technology as well as paying a good wage..

 

 

 

One of Eisenhower's main platforms was Federal deficit reduction. How does that fir in with Bernie's "free" campaign?

[wildcat junkie]

One of Eisenhower's main platforms was Federal deficit reduction. How does that fir in with Bernie's "free" campaign?

 

What part of tax cuts for the rich & the growth of deficits don't you understand?

 

All of his programs are offset by taxes on those that make $250K or more, just like Eisenhower only lower taxes.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[Culvercreek hunt club]

What part of tax cuts for the rich & the growth of deficits don't you understand?

 

All of his programs are offset by taxes on those that make $250K or more, just like Eisenhower only lower taxes.

I guess I look at the federal budget with the same critical eyes that I do my own. I believe your stated  approach, while having some merit, is the cart before the horse and should follow reduced spending and deficit reduction. The order that the government has become accustom to (under BOTH parties) is akin to running up your credit card and taking a second mortgage believing it will increase you income. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Culvercreek hunt club

[wildcat junkie]

I guess I look at the federal budget with the same critical eyes that I do my own. I believe your stated  approach, while having some merit, is the cart before the horse and should follow reduced spending and deficit reduction. The order that the government has become accustom to (under BOTH parties) is akin to running up your credit card and taking a second mortgage believing it will increase you income. 

 

You are describing perfectly the voodoo economics of the Reagan & "W" Bush tax cuts. The projected increased tax revenue never happened in either case.

 

By spending on much needed infrastructure repairs/upgrades you increase wages for a large number of middle class workers. THAT WILL increase tax revenues as well as payments into Social Security.

 

When the DEBT has been increased due to tax cuts for the wealthy & profitable corporations are added to 2 wars put on the credit card as well as corporate subsidies for those same profitable corporations, the situation calls for an increased investment into the economy just like capital investment in a corporation to get thing started.

Edited February 18, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[Culvercreek hunt club]

You are describing perfectly the voodoo economics of the Reagan & "W" Bush tax cuts. The projected increased tax revenue never happened in either case.

 

By spending on much needed infrastructure repairs/upgrades you increase wages for a large number of middle class workers. THAT WILL increase tax revenues as well as payments into Social Security.

 

When the DEBT has been increased due to tax cuts for the wealthy & corporations are added to 2 wars put on the credit card, the situation calls for an increased investment into the conomy just like capital investment in a corporation to get thing started.

I am in the construction market and I never bought into the infrastructure being the place to spend, if spending is required. it is a short term fix and even the initial influx of $$ into the economy is short term and artificial.  Don't get me wrong, I love to see a boom in construction but would rather see it in a more sustainable market. In all honesty I don't see how we could man a big infrastructure boom currently. Skilled trades are down and the manpower isn't there. Wages are being inflated to attract what labor is available and as a whole the skilled labor force is increasing in age and decreasing in talent. (Pipe fitters and Pipe welders 80-100,000 a year,open shop and not chasing shutdowns where the money is even higher)

 

For the record I am not a welfare fan and that goes for corporations as well. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Culvercreek hunt club

[philoshop]

A 100% income tax on every person and every corporation in the US earning more than $250k per year wouldn't even fund the current Federal government through June. What's next?

[wildcat junkie]

I am in the construction market and I never bought into the infrastructure being the place to spend, if spending is required. it is a short term fix and even the initial influx of $$ into the economy is short term and artificial.  Don't get me wrong, I love to see a boom in construction but would rather see it in a more sustainable market. In all honesty I don't see how we could man a big infrastructure boom currently. Skilled trades are down and the manpower isn't there. Wages are being inflated to attract what labor is available and as a whole the skilled labor force is increasing in age and decreasing in talent. (Pipe fitters and Pipe welders 80-100,000 a year,open shop and not chasing shutdowns where the money is even higher)

 

For the record I am not a welfare fan and that goes for corporations as well. 

 

It would still be far better $$$ spent that handing out more tax cuts to people that will hide their income in tax havens or invest in 3rd world industry thus eliminating even more American jobs.

 

And what would happen to that added $$$ in the hands of the working middle class? Would your business profit from increased residential construction & remodeling when those workers spend their now disposable income?. Would the auto industry see an increases in sates? Would restaurants see more business? Would retailers benefit from increased sales? Where did we ever get the idea that suppressing income for working middle class would benefit the economy?

Edited February 18, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

A 100% income tax on every person and every corporation in the US earning more than $250k per year wouldn't even fund the current Federal government through June. What's next?

 

The growth of the working middle class paying more taxes due to increased income?

[philoshop]

This video is from 2011, and from a conservative, but it's 9 minutes that is well worth watching for anyone who thinks taxing the wealthy is an answer. One may disagree on principle, but it's hard to argue with real numbers.

 

https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/eat-rich

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 Where did we ever get the idea that suppressing income for working middle class would benefit the economy?

Suppressing? who said anything about that? I also don't believe in artificially inflating it either. I know there are some on here that lover the "get by doing as little as possible and getting away with it theory", but I have seen through my career that people get paid based on their contribution and what they are worth. 

 

Take a read into Davis Bacon wages and tell me this isn't artificial inflation

[The_Field_Ager]

I guess I look at the federal budget with the same critical eyes that I do my own. I believe your stated  approach, while having some merit, is the cart before the horse and should follow reduced spending and deficit reduction.

 

Let's not forget that half of the country in the labor force earns under 40k a year. About 20% of folk do not make enough or are actively unemployed to even count as a Tax revenue source. The amount of people making the higher incomes, 250k and upward, is such a tiny percentage, that you could tax 'em all at 100% and it would not make a dent in the amount of money needed to fund current levels of spending.Hence the fact that the nation is now indebted to the tune of trillions of Dollars. Debt so high it doesn't make sense anymore to worry about ever trying to pay it off.Default followed by economic collapse is the only option left on the table now.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Papist

[philoshop]

The growth of the working middle class paying more taxes due to increased income?

 

You'll have to help me out here Wildcat. How does the working middle class grow through government taxation?

 

I understand the premise of the Eisenhower thing you posted: Collecting 90% of profits from corporations, through threat of violence, will somehow force them to reinvest in their R&D and expand their business and their workforce so that they can avoid paying taxes. The tax shortfall is then made up by taxing that expanded 'working middle class'.

On second thought, I don't understand this at all.

[Uptown Redneck]

Isn't Mexico a "capitalistic republic"? Have a good look boys because if the GOP gets their way, that's going to be our economy. But at least then they'll put people back to work.

At minimum wage so thier big business donors can continue to rape the working class. America's capatialist system places more importance on the dollar then on the well being of its citizens.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Uptown Redneck

[wildcat junkie]

At minimum wage so thier big business donors can continue to rape the working class. America's capatialist system places more importance on the dollar then on the well being of its citizens.