documentaries always have a certain bias.
we all do when trying to make an argument or point.this should not come as a surprise.
people have a right to their own opinions and ideologies,they just dont have a right to their own facts and to impose disinformation in order to manipulate using a contrived argument.

@heropsycho
your comment was well thought out but i do find a few statements you made a tad...disconcerting.
you question the stay at home mother as to her reasons for staying home.
they may be many but the main reason most stay-at-home moms..well..stay at home is for the children.which has been statistically proven to be beneficial for the well-being of not only the home but the children as well.
you wonder why she is not at work.
should everybody get on the hampster wheel and sacrifice the welfare of their family?
has the american dream so devolved as to be almost non-existent?
should every family become debt slaves?
and those who do not should be criticized and derided for not being one?

another part of your comment mentioned outsourcing and the possible reason was lack of education and training.
i agree with that comment but i feel it is missing some vital contextual references:
1.america was a manufacturing giant during the 50's 60's and 70's mainly due to WWII and the decimation of europes manufacturing (bombs tend to do that).
2.while the IT business is booming and i agree that we do need more training,you failed to mention that these "imported" workers tend to make far less than their american counterparts.
3."outsourcing" is a media manufactured word to fit the narrative but fails to identify what it really is:slave labor in third world countries.
4.you also failed to mention the REASON why so many american manufacturing companies "outsource" which is basically sweetheart deals and tax havens,nevermind the total lack of labor safety practices,humane working conditions,child labor laws.these companies dont go to third world countries due to lack of labor or training but rather so they can pay an 8 yr old girl 37 cents a day to make your nike sneakers.

so i disagree with your conclusion that the biggest problem facing the US economy is training and education (a factor but not the biggest problem).
the biggest problem the US economy faces is:two full scale wars and a "police action" all funded on borrowed money.
public elections funded by private entities (corporations and financial institutions)which leads to a corrupt legislature who works for their financial backers and no longer for the people.
a bail out of financial institutions due to their being "too big to fail" and are now ironically bigger than ever.
the absolute and utter failure of the fourth estate to watchdog the powerful in order to inform the public for fear of losing access to the very power they were charged to watchdog.because if they had done their job iraq would have never happened nor would the housing and consequent financial crisis.

these are just a few of the things from a very long list but i feel they are substantial in where we are now.

The corporations that control our government are using the deficit as a means of destabilizing our economy, in order to intimidate us into selling off our resources, cutting our social programs and giving away our first amendment right of assembly.

This is the Shock Doctrine in effect. Disaster capitalism.

They've done it to Chile and Argentina, and now they are using these tactics on the United States. Not only is a high deficit an effective means of corporate control, it is also a great way to make money, as every looted bailout, subsidy, handout and no bid contract dollar is currently stagnating in some offshore corporate tax haven. We should freeze those accounts, repatriate those looted dollars and send these corporate execs to Guantanamo for the rest of their lives.

The problem is not that the legislative branch is deaf, blind or dumb. The problem is that they are corrupt. They have no intention of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit.

"(Ayn) Rand’s receipt of welfare benefits in no way diminishes her status as a champion of individual liberty. I quote from an interview with Rand for a 1966 issue of The Objectivist newsletter:

It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

Yes, Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits, and that’s okay.
by Bevan Sabo


MEANWHILE.......

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist

>> ^Djevel:

When entering into the USAF back in the mid-90's, I was advised not to put down my denomination as Atheist. The SSgt wouldn't go into details as to why, other than if I happened to be in a life threatening situation with others, it may be impressed upon those of religious persuasion to save their brethren before making the attempt for me. It would be easier for "everyone" if I just put "non-denominational" instead. Throughout basic training and tech school, I also had the luxury of additional detail (labor) because I wasn't comfortable attending church services. Later, as I gained rank, it was also impressed upon me that to further my career, organizations, such as Toastmasters, would be enthusiastically encouraged from my leadership chain.
If things have changed since then, fantastic, but I was never given the impression that the armed forces were the enlightenment of civilization in regards to secularism, "all walks of life" withstanding.


And for @Gamble... I know your movies like "Full Metal Jacket" does exactly what's being described, but have you guys (or anyone in the armed services) ever seen/had/heard a Atheist Sergeant ? It seems to me that besides on the death bed and when you are in a "peaceful" defensive setup that only then would religion (and only then) be allowed to function full strength.

It seems incredibly counter-intuitive to have instilled or given religious Christians (the ability to countermand--without a court-marshal & on-site kick to the groin and punch in the face--[ I know they don't have the ability--they just have people that are willing to be unscrupulous for them to cover anything up--how very Christian of... yadda, yadda, yadda...]), to ever (I know the point was that he was a crappy Sergeant, but they're are many like him ; but this one example is mine ) have a Sergeant teach at basic and later on for specialists (marines/rangers/etc...) that creates a not only a physical division within the ranks, but a mental one.

If actually acted upon or even used in the normal functions of combat you put: the mission, the soldiers, civilians, allies, and more like completely missing/noticing any opportunities to get the enemy. Tactics and doing your job should always be priority number one. If religion is in any of these top priorities, except for morality (as it is altruistically linked to religion and life, even Atheists; morality is being linked more and more as a intrinsic property of our evolution and all mammals in general; even bee colonies work together "through Christ" though?...), but morality is a near fully physical psychological manifestation due to instincts and evolution (and religion; especially when you fear dying and going to a lake of fire; this could be considered a "psychotic" attribute, especially when it concerns *this, present, reality*).

As state and religion are compelled to stay apart due to the constitution and how it relates the two and law in the First Amendment; so should religion and military as they have the same correlated negative qualities as what comes from not following the First Amendment. (Yes I know it never says it, but: Thomas Jefferson did, the Supreme Court has used it many time (making it essentially a law, regardless), and the First Amendment if understood correctly (look at the Supreme Court cases involved and how they interpreted it) creates a literal gap between the State (the State can't make a law concerning Religion, whatsoever) and Religion ( Religion like the State must never become entwined in any fashion with the State; if it does it isn't considered a Religion by the State and loses all it's protections, like the notion of organization tax exemption, which unlike a typical organization can make money [this is why so many people hate Scientology as it's literally at the line that shouldn't be crossed and is considered a tax haven by many]).

Only more lives will be at risk. Giving yourself a moral boost using religion can be done silently; I know I used to be heavily religious.
_{Keep your mind at task; this is life and death. It's also not just your life on the line.}
/sorry ran a bit longer than intended

>> ^quantumushroom:

The US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Japan has the highest and it's cutting it incrementally from 40% to 20%.
Sooner or later, socialism always fails. Learn the lesson.


Total bullcrap. Most of the Fortune 500 pay NO taxes at all because of overgenerous loopholes and tax havens. I bet if the corporate tax was calculated based on what corporations REALLY pay, the US would be one of the lowest.

Sooner or later CORPORATE PLUTOCRACY always fails. Learn the lesson.

BAHAHAHHAA! Oh snap! He's making a song about taxes! Haven't heard that before! Take THAT, government! It's so fresh.

Seriously. Get some perspective. I'm not going to defend everything the government does, but it has done some good things. And I imagine the double standard people have towards it.

Fictonal scenario: Government didn't do bailouts. As a result, car companies went bust, lost jobs, pensions, homes. Banks collapsed and liquidated. Home values go way south. Got a 401k? IRA? Mutual Fund? Are you invested in ANYTHING? Well, you could've kissed all that goodbye if there were no bailout. It's a sad truth. Now if that happened, I would bet the farm people would've screamed at the government saying, "meow meow meow how come you didn't do anything for us?! meow meow meow."

Instead, they DID the bailouts with comparitively little damage, and people are pissed. Fuck you people. All you do is bitch and provide no solutions.

@dag

He's actually a cyborg sent back from the future to kill Sarah Connor and foil the resistance when SkyNet becomes self aware.

@Lodurr

Yeah, countries that are dependent on a single industry or product are referred to as banana republics. When it comes down to it, it's very hard for a developing economy to avoid this pitfall. Agrarian based economies are at the whims of commodity prices, bad harvests or weather conditions. Manufacturing based economies which produce consumer gadgets suffer substantially more from bad economic conditions because they usually fall into wants rather than needs and consumers in rich countries can put off buying them.

@rougy

So, you tax them and to avoid the tax they either funnel their profits through tax havens if they don't already do this, or they simply move offshore. In this day and age you can't coerce companies to pay workers a good wage, let alone a living wage in most cases, but regardless the fact that they're willing to work under these conditions suggests they are better off with employment rather than without. The only reliable way out of that situation is improve academic education, provide valuable trade skills, improve infrastructure or lower trade barriers. Taxing corporations, protectionism or raising the minimum wage are all detrimental on the other hand.

You're forced by law only if you live here, you could always move. US expats are all over the world enjoying various other forms of government, some involve zero tax or very low tax. If you're paying taxes here there's one of two reasons. You've decided to stay and enjoy the benefits but want to complain about the cost anyway, or you're too young to move and need to blame your parents instead. Go ahead and blame them, I'll wait.

All done? Ok. If you want tips on tax havens check the following page for starters on what to look for, it describes what it calls "no or nominal taxes" nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

You are in a democracy and the citizens did vote for change, I happen to have some real questions about the man as well but just because some have questions, or worse real fears, that doesn't make our concerns any more important than the rest of the nations. Democracy, elections, results matter and all of that good stuff. Try again next time if you want a different type of change.

To the meat of it, yes, this does answer my question but not in the way that you intend I don't think. I'll quote it again so we don't get confused on what part.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Can you personally think of any ways to build schools, roads, or fund law enforcement which don't involve physical violence or forced taxation? If you can't, does that settle the question?


I'll ask you the exact same question. You happen to live in a democracy. A democracy that has decided that it wants the police, wants the roads, wants the schools. Not just this nation but civilized nations for as long as history records have built roads for public use and trade. Don't like it? Go somewhere where the majority don't want those things. Unless of course you can figure out a way to provide those things without taxes. Socialism is being used mostly as an empty buzzword to scare people who don't understand what it means. We've always been socialist, and capitalist, and a couple of other things besides. So have most other nations at least in modern times. Just in various aspects of our lives or economy. The debate is simply in degree. If you or Keyes object to programs name them and offer the reasons, don't toss empty buzzwords. Specifics I might even agree with. You never know.

Change enough minds to win the next election and with someone who agrees with you, change your address, or adapt.

^ thanks, orn!

*kill

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/ANP-Tax-Havens-The-Hidden-Hand-in-the-Financial-Crisis

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/ANP-Tax-Havens-The-Hidden-Hand-in-the-Financial-Crisis

Reading jwray's stuff makes me want to hurl.

Absolute capitalism without any welfare, inheritance/gift tax, or income tax would become practically indistinguishable from the worst sort of absolute monarchy as the vasy majority of the wealth is concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

Actually, socialist policies have done nothing but increase, and the problems you describe have gotten worse. Still waiting for that socialist idea that actually increases the wealth of the bottom. Prior to 1913 we never had an income tax. Special tax credits as a form of anti-competitive subsidy were thus impossible, and charity was at its highest in American history. Actually, the funniest part is just the idea that increases taxes on the rich helps in some way. All it does is incentivize those people to sit on their money, or move it into a tax haven, or leave the country altogether. Precisely what happened when Hoover raised marginal rates to 63% and FDR to 90% succeeding him. Would you go through the trouble of running a business if government is taking 90% of what you make if you make anything? Didn't think so.

Whoever owns all the means of living could dictate the terms of their use down to every detail such as what you're allowed to read in your apartment.

Epic fail. In a republic, a constitution prevents rights from being infringed, regardless of how much money one person has over the other. You can't even vote it away with a majority, that's the difference between a republic and a democracy. Who is responsible for electing politicians who follow it and punishing those who don't? You. You are the regulator for the regulators. 98% of the public didn't vote for Ron Paul, therefore 98% of the people don't believe the supreme law is important or should be followed. The end. You have no one but yourself to blame. You've chosen the benevolent dictator route, no law, no concept of barring certain powers under any circumstances. Good luck with that.

Ayn Rand fails to consider that if her pure capitalist system were followed absolutely, someone with enough money could have the same power over everyone as a fascist police state via owning all the media, owning all the land upon which the food is grown, etc.

In order to make that kind of money in a free market system that protects rights, the person to whom you're referring would essentially have to create every product and service with the utmost quality and awesomeness. Remember, with small government, he can't bribe a politician for forcibly appropriated money because the politician doesn't have it. He can't get an anti-competitive tax credit, because income taxes don't even exist for anyone, just like pre-1913. Fraud isn't an option because he would be taken to government courts and lose. False advertising either. Theft either. Rights are protected. What the hell does this person do to get wads and wads of money? Well... they essentially have to create a product or service that millions and millions of people will buy. Need workers for that. No problem, let's hire some workers for a penny a piece. What? They won't work for a penny because someone else is offering them a nickel? Shit, we'll offer them a quarter and still make money! WHAT YOU SAY, HE OUTBID ME ON THAT SKILLED LABOR AGAIN. CHRIST, THIS IS GOING TO TAKE FOREVER, MY PROFIT MARGINS ARE GETTING KILLED BY GODDAMN COMPETITORS TRYING TO DO WHAT I'M DOING AND BIDDING UP WAGES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUFdj103G60

Anyway, Ayn Rand's brand of libertarianism is not the popular brand. You're dreadfully confused to be building up this kind of strawman in your fearmongering of capitalism. I think this Milton Friedman link ought to clear it up for you, as well as some other things, such as how dirty technology invariably contributes to its cleaner successor, and how government cannot possibly spend other people's money with as much thrift as people would spend their own. This stuff seems so obvious once you hear it, but you'd be amazed at how clueless most people are at these basic fundamental behaviors. They assume that because 100% capitalism doesn't work, that the optimal system must be 50% or even less capitalism. In reality, just a little bit of government force is necessary and it should require no more than 10% of a people's capital in order to exercise the functions of defending rights and offering courts. It was never intended to appropriate 50% of our money for undeclared wars like Vietnam and Iraq, or subsidize industries in exchange for campaign financing, or fund pet projects, or forcibly manage retirement and health care via unsustainable ponzi schemes.

Remember, outside of nominal appropriations (taxes), the government inflates with a non-market determined money that it is capable of duplicating at no labor or material cost. Even a poor family not paying any income tax and getting welfare payments is having their wages and purchasing power diminished by the inflation tax. This is the key. This is the root cause, it's how despite everything they are getting with the left hand, government is taking more from the right via inflation. This is how our economy came to be in shambles, how markets distorted, how wealth started to transfer from the bottom to the top, like every fiat economy before it. Because those who use the money the Fed is creating increase their bidding power with it while those who have no money can't get their themselves because their wages and savings are being perpetually debased by it. How do you accumulate so much money that you can live off interest on stock for a living when your cost of living continues to rise faster than your wages? Bingo, you've figured it out. Congrats. Inflation is how government finances most of its activities today and this is how our economy has been destroyed. We let go of the gold limit in 71, we had one decent Fed chairman that took away the punch bowl to wipe the slate for another bull run, and that was it, the inevitable collapse of our fiat money is assured from the current hole we've dug. We now abuse our reserve currency status of the world gained under gold to export our inflation worldwide, which is why the problems today are so global. 10 trillion national debt, 70 billion a month trade deficit, 60 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a negative savings rate, two income households barely making ends meet, and an economy that since the early 90s has depended on perpetual credit extensions from the savings of the world to consume imported products that those creditors make in exchange for paper interest that they can recycle back into us or lock in a vault. They get paper, we get products. Yay for them. Yeah, don't delink from the dollar, don't use those savings to invest in production, keep loaning it to us to consume products you can't afford because of it.

These, of course, are policies you support. Libertarians don't want government to have the ability to inflate, because it makes no sense. You can't give government instant access to every person's purchasing power and expect them not to mortgage it. That's precisely what fiat money enables. And chances are that some lawyer spending millions of dollars to get in a low-paying position of legislating and distributing other people's forcibly appropriated money isn't going to be a very honest or incorruptible individual. Not sure why you haven't figured this out yet or why you think this is more efficient or moral than an individual trying to convince you give him your money in exchange for a product or service you want and think might improve your life.

The threat of starvation is just as effective as the threat of violence.

Where are people most starving today and throughout history? Exactly in the types of places where people are least able to keep and spend their own money as they see fit. Did China have to build walls to keep people from going into Hong Kong, or did Hong Kong have to build walls to keep people from going into China?