Christy Cervantes: Would somebody please tell me what the fuck this Occupy Denton bullshit is about? I thought it was just in Denton, but I'm learning that this is happening all over the country.
Courtney Renee Williams: Are you kidding or do you really have no idea?
Christy Cervantes: No I know what it's about...I'm just confused as to why colllege students are sitting around UNT Campus protesting corporate greed. Humans by nature are greedy. We've never been the kind of species that just survives. Good luck changing the way we think. Every man for himself.
Courtney Renee Williams: Humans by nature also take care of each other. You should look into altruism.
Christy Cervantes: I'm greedy enough to take care of those around me who help take care of me. I know that our economy is in shambles. But this protest is getting ridiculous. I guarantee you that at least 40% of the those in Occupy Denton don't even really know what their cause is. And if our economy crumbles, we're in BIG trouble. I mean, when the Iraqi Dinar finally topples over the American dollar, what will we have left? Everything went downhill when the dollar was no longer used as the world's general currency and they stopped selling oil in the Middle East exclusively through American currency. And maybe...just maybe...we should focus on immigration and get illegals the hell out of here and get American's working again.
And these people are upset that the banks got bailed out. But do you want to know why the banks needed help? Because people took out loans that they couldn't and/or didn't pay off. Yet these students believe that the government should take care of their college debt? Yeah...okay...considering no one forced them into education. And paying off college debt isn't inconceivable. It just takes determination, hard work, and budgeting. I'm sick of people whining like they think they deserve a handout. Nothing in life is free, you have to earn it.
And these people are upset that the banks got bailed out. But do you want to know why the banks needed help? Because people took out loans that they couldn't and/or didn't pay off. Yet these students believe that the government should take ...
Shawn Quinn: I agree work hard to succeed. That's the American way!
Christy Cervantes: Nah man...not anymore. Now it's wait for your lawsuit or live off welfare and unemployment. This country is on a slippery slope.
James Robert Foster II: Thanks for accepting my FR and letting me be part of this conversation.
I'm not sure how greed leads to taking care of other people.
We've been in recession for 10 years now... Mr. Bush and Congress pushed the stimulus through at the end of his second term to keep it afloat, but somehow the right pins this on Mr. Obama and his Congress. I agree that some stimulus was necessary, but the problem is that there was little to no oversight on the bailouts that were given to the financial giants. They literally showered their execs with bonuses while the economy continued in recession. It makes people think that maybe they didn't need so much of a taxpayer subsidy to begin with.
Somehow the right has no problem with giving them a taxpayer subsidy (along with big-oil), but they want to cut education, regulatory bodies, cut SS and Medicare, disband FEMA and the EPA (all of which provide jobs, by the way), and, most surprisingly, cut taxes. Mr. Bush cut taxes under the premise that supply-side economics/Reaganomics is an effective stimulus, but it's been proven by now that this is not the case. If so, we should have seen a turnaround by now. Isn't that why the GOP Representatives wanted to extend them?
All the while, due to dramatically decreased tax-revenue, the deficit gets bigger and bigger, and China--The biggest (socalled) communist country in the world--buys more US debt. How is it that free-market principles and a Capitalist-based economy is superior to a Communist one while they are outperforming us economically? The business cycle, with lack of regulation, is too unstable. Keynes established that fairly well after the great depression, and the USA experienced a period of high-taxation and growth, and built up a massive, superior infrastructure. Now, without funding, our infrastructure is crumbling and our global infrastructure ranking is dwindling (which includes k-12 public education). Deregulation caused the housing bubble...
Also, there is something called the Phillip's curve which expressed the inverse correlation between unemployment and inflation. Basically, lower the unemployment rate, the higher the inflation rate. From an economic perspective, to expect a near-0% unemployment is undesirable, because it would cause a very high rate of inflation. Also, due to automation of labor, unemployment should be expected to become more prevalent. Shouldn't technology be liberating people from labor? Do you know the one job-industry that has experienced constant growth throughout the recession? The service industry... more skilled and professional workers find themselves out of work and taking on low-paying service jobs, usually without benefits comparable to a full-time position. Who benefits of off the mechanization of labor? The corporations. So capital concentrates at the top, true to Marxian form...
This is what the OWS protests are about:
"We are engaged in a battle over ideas. Our idea is that our political structures should serve us, the people – all of us, not just those who have amassed great wealth and power. We believe this idea resonates with so many of us because Congress, beholden to Wall Street, has ignored the powerful stories pouring out from the homes and hearts of our neighbors, stories of unrelenting economic suffering. Our dream for a democracy in which we matter is why so many people have come to identify with Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/15/occupy-wall-street-you-cant-evict)
Consider this as well: (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/10/warren-buffett-reveals-billionaire-friendly-tax-return/)
"Billionaire Warren Buffett revealed he made $62,855,038 last year, though his taxable income was only $39,814,784.
In a letter to Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., obtained by the Associated Press on Wednesday, Buffett revealed his adjusted gross income to the super committee member in his quest to persuade Congress to raise taxes for the rich. Buffett has argued that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes compared with the middle-class.
The letter was one of several to members of Congress as the so-called super committee decides how to trim $1.2 trillion from the federal budget.
This summer, Buffett’s op-ed in the New York Times argued for an increase in taxes for the rich, saying the they are “coddled” by Congress “as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species.” He wrote: “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.”
In the letter, Buffett wrote that he paid $6,938,744 in federal taxes last year, or 17.4 percent of his taxable income."
Christy Cervantes: Shared sacrifice? Really? Considering that American's are statistically one of the laziest countries, how can you honestly expect the country to fund those who can't even help themselves. People who make big bucks did something spectacular to earn it. And it doesn't necessarily matter how they achieved financial success. Do you think it's fair to take such large amounts out for tax from someone who wins the lottery? Why should someone have to pay any percentage of money earned in a luck-based situation. Because they won in America they then owe the government for those winnings? Why does no one see the flaw in that? And let me just say this. I'm not a wealthy person by any means. I have $10 to my name right now, but I DO NOT think that I as an American am owed financial assistance. All that I am owed is the protection of hired officials, the opportunity for education and to work.
Growing up as a kid, this is not at all the world I thought I would be living in. But here I am. And even as much as I despise the corrupt nature of our "great" country, I couldn't have more freedoms anywhere else. So I sit and get frustrated with the lazy and stupid general public. All I want in life is to be happy and share it with someone. And reaching those goals is all that I concern myself with. The only person I KNOW for a fact that will ALWAYS have my back no doubt in mind is me. So i look out for me. And when I say I'm greedy enough to take care of those that take care of me, I mean greedy as in I am greedy and want them in my life so I do what I have to. It's not the most positive way of considering relationships, but it is a form of greediness (or selfishness) nonetheless.
James Robert Foster II: How do you get statistics on laziness? Exercise? Work? Participation in sports, or what?
Whether or not were statistically the laziest we are statistically the wealthiest, and the majority of that wealth is concentrated at the top. Even Mr Buffet says, "tax us more."
And what extraordinary contribution does a Baseball player or NASCAR driver make to society that a skilled laborer does not, which entitled them to make hundreds of times more money?
Christy Cervantes: People have to be smart enough to minimize debt. And they have to work hard enough to pay off THEIR debt. When a person accrues debt, it is no one's responsibility but their own to take care of it. I've read articles about college students freaking over college debt. Anyone who goes into college without any thought to the debt they will have has no business leaning on the education system. And maybe, instead of partying and wasting away their money and time, they can work through college. A lot of strippers use their money to pay off school. And people can judge them all they want, but they're doing what they have to and taking advantage of a profitable opportunity. And I hear people talking all the time about how if we got rid of all the illegal immigrants in the country, our economy would slip even further because real American citizens seem to be under the impression that they're too good to get their hands dirty and do hard labor. There are jobs out there, but people have to want to actually work.
Brandon Moise: We need to occupy UNT because there are far too many multi-billionaires exploiting the UNT students. Duh.
James Robert Foster II: Yes I think it is fair.
Seriously, if I make an AGI of 35k and pay 25%, I have only 26k left. If warren buffet pays 35% of 39-MILLION, he still has 25-MILLION.
The top tax bracket is 35%, but somehow Buffett's accounting firms reduced it to 17.4%. That's less than middle income earners pay: (mid income = single $34,500 – $83,600, married $69,000 – $139,350, head of household $46,250 – $119,400)
Even if Mr. Buffet paid 100% of his income in tax, he'd still be pocketing $23,040,254. Are you telling me that he'd be worse off for it. The entire country would benefit from it...
Christy Cervantes: Any celebrity, whether sports, TV, movies etc. gets paid based on talent and time in the spotlight. Please consider for a moment if your life was displayed for all the world to see, and every tiny detail was available to anyone at any time. I understand that they choose that lifestyle. But think about it; most Pro Athletes end up coaching or in commercials when they've passed their prime because they don't know how to do anything. And without entertainment, the country would riot. Humans are a strange species and we need so many special treatments just to function as a whole. We are destroying this planet bit by bit. But all these "occupiers" that truly believe are only in it for their personal cause. Help me...I'm more important. It's like fucking Texas drivers, people only care about themselves.
Brandon Moise: So wait a second, James, you're saying that since he makes more money because he's a savvy business person, he should pay more than you in taxes? He does. Lets say you pay 25% of your 35k in taxes, you pay $8750 in taxes annually. If Warren Buffet pays 25% of his 35 million dollar income, he pays $8,758,750.
Lets make it fair for the rich people, everyone pays the same amount of taxes. You pay the same amount as Warren. That'll motivate you.
Christy Cervantes: The entire country didn't earn it! He did, by DOING WHAT HE HAD TO DO. Seriously, why do we deserve his hard-earned money, whether or not he wants to volunteer to pay more taxes. He doesn't owe the American public a fuckin dime. Why on Earth would we think that we're so great and wonderful that we deserve a handout?
Brandon Moise: Because it's not fair that I havent applied myself and am not getting rewarded for it.
Christy Cervantes: ^^ That right there is the problem with American thinking. That and how we think we have to fix everyone else who doesn't think like us.
James Robert Foster II: Does being in the spotlight justify and income 100+ times greater than someone who is doing hard physical labor?
@Brandon - I get that he pays more than the hypothetical $8750, in gross, but not percentage-wise. Who ends up being more financially disabled, the 35k earner or him?
He is, himself, saying that they should be taxed more.
Besides, these social programs are necessary; infrastructure is necessary. Where should the money come from?
[More on the idea of being financially disabled by contributing a portion of income]: Whether you consider yourself Christian or not, this story is relevant:
"Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, 'Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.'” (Mark 12:41-44)
Christy Cervantes: Lol can anyone put a price on privacy? And I still don't agree that just because he makes more money, he should pay higher taxes. And where should the money come from? How about legalizing pot!! It is estimated that legalizing weed would bring in a revenue of about 6 billion dollars a year in taxes alone. Plus the growing of and distribution would offer job opportunities. And let's see..what else, let's cut funding on prisons and jails. Why should criminals have the same amenities as nearly everyone else? Where should the money come from?? There are so many places it can be found...but thanks to our right-wing Christian forefathers who founded a country that cannot separate its' government from major religion, most of the decisions that prevent us from expanding our financial horizon are backed up by religious values. When are the American's going to be able to ACTUALLY decide what's best for us?
Well since I live on logic, not faith, I can't say that story is remotely relevant because supporting a temple that shepherds a few and supporting a government that accounts for millions cannot be compared.
James Robert Foster II: I'm actually an agnostic, and agree with separation of church and state, but don't agree that all the FF's were right-wing or even Christian. Thomas Paine was a notable atheist, and Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible with all the supernatural elements removed... that's beside the point, though.
You still have to have an original source of tax-revenue. And as we previously discussed, we will always have an unemployed population... what should happen to them?
I agree that we can make some cuts, especially in DOD spending (which carries a hidden tax-payer provided R&D subsidy to contractors like Honeywell, Raytheon, SPAWAY, BAE, etc.), but why can't you agree that we need to enhance tax-revenue?
Over the past decades we've kept reducing and deregulating... [following] the GOP mantra... and look where it has gotten us. What happened in the FDR Era? A cursory historical comparison should serve to convince anyone who is open-minded. Unfortunately, it also seems that people tend to be stubborn by nature as well.
[The parable of Jesus and the Widow with the two mites] is a relevant story because, as I said before, the lower income earner is more seriously handicapped by paying 8k in taxes, but buffet could pay 100% in taxes and still pocket over 20 MILLION DOLLARS. How does that destroy his financial ability to live a happy life in any way whatsoever? It doesn't... but for the 35k per year earner, it's a much different story. I didn't think I would have to spell it out in such detail, but there you have it.
Btw, the movement is not just in the USA, it is multi-national.
Shawn Quinn: the movement is just another socialist take over movement. I'm in no way of rich and have been raised in a pretty poor enviroment but that doesn't make me want to take more money from the rich they earned they deserve it(well most of them) but I know that my hard work contributes to our country and that is the right thing to do. Alot of people ( and I mean alot) take advantage of our government programs and run them into the ground bc they are lazy. Those are the ones you'll see jump on a band wagon about social justice. Oh and these protest are not peaceful either how about the people interviewed that said they wouldn't care if 9/11 happened again and wish it would happen again? Wouldn't that be a form of treason and your ok with backing this lame socialistic movement or how about them saying they are going to burn down NYC? Is that really the right way to protest? no thats committing crimes and i hope the police take down anyone who tries to start troubles. Violence is not nescary at all from protestors. They have already burned three cars in a jewish neighborhood and painted swastikas on walls bc the greedy "jews" control the banks.
James Robert Foster II: That's a straw-man representation of the movement. The left tried the same tactics on the tea party, attempting to make them look ignorant, racist, trashy, etc. regardless of the views and actions or the lack of understanding or ability to articulate of individual protestors in both movements, there are clear motivations, arguments, and goals held by both.
And yes, I do support socialization; I'm a social libertarian or anarcho-syndicalist, and a technocrat. Freedom, democracy, and socialism are not necessarily opposed and not at all mutually exclusive. The Free-market variety of Capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) on the other hand, leads to unfettered accumulations of power, marginalizing an ever-increasing percentage of the population. The only remedy to prevent a "peasant revolt" is implementation of socialist measures as we saw in the reconstruction period, where many public services were socialized and the welfare state was born. We've regressed by deregulating housing, repealing the Glass-Steagall act, killing estate tax, and cutting income taxes for the wealthy. We could definitely stand to revamp some programs.
We socialized schools, transportation, law-enforcement, fire-relief, and provide social services in housing and housing development, nutrition, water treatment, sanitation, healthcare, mail... The list goes on. Socialization is what we want, because it benefits the public overall. This is the process of becoming more civilized by raising the overall standard of living in the country.
Shawn Quinn: yes some programs def need to be rebuilt and built with Americans in mind. When I said Socialism I was speaking of a Marxist type. There is a very fine line that you have to walk when socializing programs to much and we take away our basic freedoms of working hard and making it to the top. If I was making more money I would be just as upset if they said I would get taxed more bc I possesed a certain skill and excelled at it. what would be the point of trying to better your life if you would just get taxed more the more you would make? Now what this all boils down too is pure utter laziness and society making people believe they need to have fancy things. if this was a 40's America (in a certain sense) People had what they needed and were happy working harded for more. Mostly they did not expect the government to make them richer or give them a hand out. I have lived in a government housing apartment before and I paid full price for it. but I can tell you from exp[erience alot of the folks there did nothing all day and sat around eating up government money. (mainly they stayed drunk lol) Reform yes but with common sense and this all comes down to both parties forgetting about differences and Rememebering that we are ALL Americans. I am a conservative Libertarian Btw so I do understand alot of what your saying.
Andrew Calococci: I think James has the right idea here and Shawn you're right we need reform with common sense so that we're not handing out money to the wrong people. Deregulation of the the free market is certainly what got us here and will continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor all the while diminishing the middle class (which I think most of us are in). These days it seems that corporations have more power than politicians. I agree that the government should not have too much power or else you'll eventually have Big Brother looking over your shoulder, but cutting education!? Our faulty education system is partially why we have stupid ignorant Americans on welfare. I am proud to live in a country where hard work will always pay off. There are many rich people who were born into privileged situations which made it easier for them to work their way to the top. But you will see that people who truly worked their way from the bottom to the top of the social latter are more than happy to pay their fair share of taxes. I think it is important to level the playing field so that a poor child can focus on his education rather than his next meal. And seriously if that means that a rich guys can only have two private jets instead of three than boo fuckin hoo!!!
James Robert Foster II @Shawn - You say, ". what would be the point of trying to better your life if you would just get taxed more the more you would make? "
You still enjoy a better life. Using the 'Mr. Buffett' exmple, once again, it's clear that his income is more, regardless of paying more taxes. Even if he paid 100% of his AGI in tax, he would still be making more per year than most people accumulate in assets in an entire lifetime... So the extrinsic rewards are there.
And regardless of that, the money you pay in tax also should be an extrinsic motivator. Social programs make the country a better place to live for everyone, including the person paying the taxes--unless you don't enjoy public roads and a relatively navigable transportation grid, parks, clean air and water, an educated population, the security of knowing that you won't be left to die if you experience an unforeseen catastrophe or get laid-off (or both).
And finally, extrinsic motivators are not the only category of motivators for action. Many people are driven by intrinsic motivations, whether it be curiosity, principle, or something else. I argue that what drives people to do certain kinds of work has more to do with this kind of motivation, especially people who make significant practical innovative contributions in most industries (excluding financial industry innovations).
In 'The Demon Haunted World,' Carl Sagan presents an argument for funding science research and science/math/engineering education with tax-dollars. In that argument he talks about how, in Victorian England, the Queen organized a panel of her best advisers, thinkers, and scientists, to work on creating a system that would allow her to speak to her constituents at will, without the use of elaborate conduits. These people were well paid, and allowed as much money and as many resources as the queen could provide to facilitate them in their work. Electricity and Magnetism, as well as optics (light) were somewhat understood, but all studied as unrelated phenomena. James Clerk Maxwell, a geeky kid from Edinburg, just out of his own curiousity about the natural world, discovered that light, magnetism, and electricity all move at exactly the same speed, regardless of the medium, and propagate as waves. This was the second great unification of physical theory, and Electromagnetic Theory was born. Without Maxwell's work, television, radio, radar, etc., would have never been possible. The point of the story, for my purpose, is to show that intrinsic motivation can, and sometimes does, motivate people to do work that benefits posterity, that extrinsic motivation, especially money, could and would never do. There are many other examples... and there is no reason for me to doubt that, even if all people's basic needs were provided, there would be people doing work to improve the world.
I would not be upset to be taxed more if I were such a high-income earner. I'd gladly give 36 million or whatever if I was still keeping 30+ million, and then I'd do philanthropic work with a portion of the rest, especially if I had a similar income rolling in the next year. The problem is that I might not do so if everyone in my peer-group was not obliged to do the same. If one person cheats the system and does not pay the same amount, they secure an advantage for themselves while I stagnate or depress my own social class. This is not desirable, especially considering any negative impact it has on the QOL of my family or children.
In a nutshell, though, that's how the capital accumulation game encourages people to, by any means they can get away with, seek capital gains rather than contribute to social and civil progress. The system rewards that, and essentially punishes people who don't do that; in other words, Capitalism punishes altruism.
The above mentioned is also one good reason why giving through taxation is superior to voluntary giving to private charity (of which there are others), as well as a reason why I don't view people like Mr. Buffett, who think they should pay more tax but elect not to, are not hypocrites for saying so. They're addressing systemic issues rather than personal ones.
There are some other arguments--like efficiency--for letting the government run certain programs, and why it is preferable to private capital/property based means of production by private organizations. People like to claim that government wastes, but the private sector is no stranger to waste either.
James Robert Foster II: Marxist theory is unavoidable in socio-economics, and I think it's important. After all, this increasing discrepancy in wealth distribution, subsequent working-class unrest, and ultimately violent revolution, is essentially what he predicts capitalism to do. His criticism of the capitalist means of production as exploitative and alienating are, as far as I can tell, accurate, as owners of the means extract surplus value from the labor of workers when selling the products of their labor. He was one of the first to attempt to make political philosophy into a science (sociology) taking Hegel's dialectic process (thesis+antithesis=synthesis) and applying it to class struggle (contra Hegelian idealism) as the driving force in social development. The main thing he got wrong was that capitalists were willing to allow a certian level of socialism to offset unrest. Schumpeter, I think, comes closer to the mark. I know I've written more than anyone where would probably care to read already, so I won't go into detail about his reformulation, but suffice it to say that he was an economist and a sympathizer with capitalism who thought Marx's theory was essentially right, but that a growing academic/intellectual class would drive the population and government to socialism through endemic replacement of capitalist structures rather than through a violent revolutionary overthrow. He believed that the society would collapse as it would be economically unable to support itself. I don't agree with this.
A technocratic, highly automated, resource-based economy as the end result would be highly preferable to any totalitarian statist government, and there is no reason that would not be possible considering our current level of technology.
The right really emphasizes the need for personal freedom and responsibility, and I can get on board with that. Where I don't want to be on board anymore is where there assumption that everyone is a the master of their own destiny, which is an unrealistic world-view. People vary in their levels of initial QOL, opportunity, social connectedness and ability, intelligence, access to healthcare, access to education, access to mentoring, and other important factors, biological and environmental. Some people are simply incapable of taking care of themselves, and it's not like there's a distinct dividing line between those who can and those who cannot. It's a vague concept, like the heap-paradox--how many grains of sand makes a heap? Likewise, some people have the drive, social, organizational, creative, and financial skills to become successful and financially independent, or at least to retire comfortably, but fail to do so due to circumstantial complications. Some people have the drive to succeed but lack the skills to do so and fail time and time again. There are innumerable scenarios, but we should appreciate that not everyone can be wildly successful.
Another reason this is true is that, in business, businesses compete against each-other and secure a greater market-share by driving competition out of business or buying them out. This means that the great success of the few will be built on the failure of many. Just like the capital-owners are the sole beneficiaries of the automation of labor, the "winners" of the cut-throat world of niche business competition become the ultimate beneficiaries of their hegemony. Ultimately, these processes leave people unemployed, or underemployed (likely with low-paying service jobs), while the few reap the reward. Why should this be the case? Isn't there a moral obligation, there? How does that make the state of the nation, or the world, better?
James Robert Foster II @Shawn - You also say, " if this was a 40's America (in a certain sense) People had what they needed and were happy working harded for more."
If this were the 1940's the top income tax rate would be to 88 percent in 1943 and 91 percent in 1945all the way until 1964.
@Christy and Shawn - Remember scoffing at Mr. Buffett's suggestion of "shared sacrifice?" In WWII society, Americans donated their privately owned scrap metal and used grease and oil to the government to build bombs and weapons, in addition to paying these high tax-rates. Didn't they seem happy?
Shawn Quinn: taking any amount of money to equal out the poverty is a form of communisim. It does not ever deserve to be in America plain and simpleif you look at how these million and billionaires actually spend and put back into our economy it evens out they buy expensive stuff. And not to mention all the ones that give money to charities. So.. Every one should be equal right or at least have an equal chance at succeding? well then why they step it up a notch and kill off the weak bc they are just costing us more tax payers money and don't contribute. One way to fix this little money problem we have is to stop illegal immagration think of all the money the us looses but never gets back from them be it they send it back home where ever that may be or take it with them back home. if thats too harsh then talk to congress bc there is a Federal law that is way more harsh than Arizonas and its been around far longer too. what about the people protesting don't they have jobs or at least be looking for jobs? Jobs are not hard to find you might have to swallow your pride and make a little less but everyone should at least try and live the Dave Ramsey way of living then people woiuldn't have as many money problems.
James Robert Foster II: It's actually not. Communism is a socio-economic system where social classes are absent and the public controls the means of production. It should be stateless, in theory. Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Most people think of Stalinist russia or Mao's China when they think of communism, but this was not Marx's vision, and this is clear when reading Marx, even in the tiny pamphlet, 'The Communist Manifesto.' Neo-Liberals did a lot of work to demonize it after WWII and through the cold-war. Wealth redistribution is, however, a form of socialist control. But the government has to do this if it wants a military, public roads, etc.
Point 2, that rich people buy expensive things so it equals out is not true either. The amount of money they spend is not equal to the amount they hoard, and taking money out of the flow and putting in savings excites interest. Taxation keeps it cycling, and puts it to constructive projects, in some cases. Also, if they are so self-sufficient, and they carry the rest of us, why did they need bailouts?
Point 3 - Killing off the weak. That's plain morally unacceptable, and you know it, and it's in direct contradiction to your aforementioned principle that, "every one should be equal right or at least have an equal chance at succeeding." Killing people does not provide them with an equal chance at success. Maybe you were attempting a reductio ad absurdum on opportunity-egalitarianism, but it's an incoherent one.
Point 4 - Immigration. What's your estimate on how much this would boost our economy, per year? Did you know that AIG received 93.4 BILLION dollars in the tax-payer funded bailout, and it was with no oversight? Goldmann-Sachs got about 13 Billion of that, as well as all the big financials, and they proceeded to shower their executives with multi-million dollar bonuses, of our money. Did the illegal immigrants go our and buy 5k+ escorts and blow cocaine with the money they made, because plenty of these execs were doing just that.
Another inconsistency with conservative ideology is that they demonize immigrants, but not the companies who hire them, and who are are outsourcing labor out of country to get a competitive advantage and increase their profit-margin. That's all good and well, right? It's the immigrants' responsibility to refuse to try to better their situation, our the government's to keep them out of country, but the companies who exploit their labor are free of blame.
Are you aware of this? "Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.
We are a nation in denial about our food supply. As a result the UFW has initiated the 'Take Our Jobs'campaign.
Farm workers are ready to welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field. We will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue on to the request for job application." (http://takeourjobs.org/)
Most of the rest of the world is much less affluent the USA. While there be some benefit to regulating immigration policy, most US Citizens feel good about us giving a tiny portion (2012 - $50.9 billion of total budget $3.729 trillion, reduced by 0.5 billion in 2011, and 0.013% of total budget) of our national budget to foreign aid (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_state/), and complaining about domestic issues while the majority of the rest of the world lives in poverty (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats). Hard-line conservatives would have us give NO foreign-aid, because those people should take care of themselves while we exploit their labor and resources. Monsters.
Point 5 - Jobs are supposedly available. Apparently you missed my diatribe on the Phillip's curve and the increasing automation of labor. Although it's been debated, there is a well known principle in economics accepted by most economist that there is an inverse correlation between unemployment and inflation. The modified-Phillip's curve expresses it. From an economic perspective, to expect a near-0% unemployment is undesirable, even if it were feasible to suggest that it's a possibility, because it would cause a very high rate of inflation.
Also, there was an event in the early 19th century called, “The Luddite Revolution.” Textile factory owners began implementing a machine that automated textile work, reducing the demand for skilled textile workers, leading many of them to find themselves out of work. The benefits for the factory owners were apparent, as it saved them money that they previously had to spend on human resources. But, the workers, now without jobs, were outraged. They organized strikes, and many of them occupied factories and destroyed looms, and faced punishment for destroying the personal property of the factory owners. Was this an inappropriate response?
We saw something similar in Detroit, and there are many other instances. Do you remember the story of John Henry?
Technology keeps improving and, in many cases, makes things more efficient, and liberates people from being menial tasks or repetitive skilled work, and in some industries, technology is replacing complex human jobs and professional work.
With automation of labor, unemployment should be expected to become more prevalent. Shouldn't technology be liberating people, and benefitting all of them, not just the owners of businesses? Do you know the one job-industry that has experienced constant growth throughout the recession? If not, I can tell you that it is the service industry. As more skilled and professional workers find themselves out of work, they—like you suggest—take on low-paying service jobs, usually without benefits comparable to a full-time position. Who benefits of off the mechanization of labor? The corporations. So capital concentrates at the top, true to Marxian form, and the workers who once had higher-paying jobs have to do some low paying, possibly even degrading, service (or other) part-time work, with less income. Some people have as many as 5 jobs, and still struggle to make ends meet. Others do literally nothing to contribute to society, and live luxurious lives without worry about affording food, health-care, or education. We can't give a little tax-money to welfare or foreign-aid, and we need to kick out the immigrants, but we can provide constant subsidies to oil-companies and to defense contractors, and when huge asset-wealthy corporations need a bailout, we pay up. What’s fair about any of this? At least we should be consistent.
