Trumps budget

[ApatheticNoMore]

There a library around here that was originally a Carnegie library, of course the New Deal project that was the Hoover damn is also still producing power some 80 years later as well.

[catherine]

My region benefitted more from the philanthropy of wealthy industrialists than it ever did from (corrupt)government. Many in this country and a few here have gotten too much of an appetite for socialism lately. Hatred for the wealthy fueled by hired typists of the left masquerading as investigative journalists is now the norm.

As a teen with a desire to learn through reading books, I visited libraries and each one had a common trait. They were called "Carnegie" libraries because without Andrew Carnegie's financial backing, they wouldn't have existed. He was once the wealthiest person on the planet. And after he retired at age 66.... he gave away 90% of his fortune. Carnegie funded scientific research and set up a pension fund for teachers with a 10 million dollar donation. He built more that 2000 public libraries and donated over $125 million dollars to colleges.

I imagine that some would have rather 90% of Carnegie's wealth were seized from him and placed into the coffers of politicians so that they could efficiently and fairly distribute it to the deserving masses. But an examination of the fairness and efficiency of Congress and D.C. should be enough to cure you of the willingness to accept this fairytale.

Williamsmith, I think deflection of the argument into an insinuation that the wealthy are hated and should be stripped of their wealth is counterproductive to this argument. I would expect this type of response from superficial thinkers, but not from the intelligent people posting here.

Let me say for the record:
I don't hate wealthy people--I simply have issue with the fact that there are fewer and fewer checks and balances that discourage vast inequality of wealth. It's not a matter of jealousy--it's a matter that has been proven time and again a that vast inequality of wealth in any country is bad for the country. Think French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, even the American Revolution was ignited by tax inequalities.

You talk about your neck of the woods, and you're right, Andrew Carnegie was compelled to give back to his local community as well as wider community. But even he said "The man that dies rich dies disgraced." I admire Andrew Carnegie--even recognizing that he exploited his workers and had to handle a rebellion among them from to time. But he was for taxing the rich:

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes—subject to some exceptions—one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for - public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. --Gospel of Wealth

People like me who appreciate Bernie Sanders don't want a free meal ticket and if McCarthism came back, I'd be clean. Just as there are checks and balances built our system, we want economic checks and balances to counter the potential negative outcomes of capitalism, of which even Adam Smith and Keynes wrote extensively and warned against. We want reins on inequality and injustice, and we want all people to benefit from the greatness this country has to offer.

I want capitalism that's based on voluntary co-operation, not sociopathic winner-take-all:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...m_source=atlfb


ETA a closing statement by Carnegie: "There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony."

[jp1]

If money conquers all, why did Clinton lose to Trump despite spending twice as much?

As with everything there are always outliers. One data point does not make a statistic.

[LDAHL]

As with everything there are always outliers. One data point does not make a statistic.

Let me put it another way. Has a political ad ever convinced you of anything (excepting the venality of political ads)?

[Williamsmith]

Williamsmith, I think deflection of the argument into an insinuation that the wealthy are hated and should be stripped of their wealth is counterproductive to this argument. I would expect this type of response from superficial thinkers, but not from the intelligent people posting here.

Let me say for the record:
I don't hate wealthy people--I simply have issue with the fact that there are fewer and fewer checks and balances that discourage vast inequality of wealth. It's not a matter of jealousy--it's a matter that has been proven time and again a that vast inequality of wealth in any country is bad for the country. Think French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, even the American Revolution was ignited by tax inequalities.

You talk about your neck of the woods, and you're right, Andrew Carnegie was compelled to give back to his local community as well as wider community. But even he said "The man that dies rich dies disgraced." I admire Andrew Carnegie--even recognizing that he exploited his workers and had to handle a rebellion among them from to time. But he was for taxing the rich:

The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes—subject to some exceptions—one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for - public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. --Gospel of Wealth

People like me who appreciate Bernie Sanders don't want a free meal ticket and if McCarthism came back, I'd be clean. Just as there are checks and balances built our system, we want economic checks and balances to counter the potential negative outcomes of capitalism, of which even Adam Smith and Keynes wrote extensively and warned against. We want reins on inequality and injustice, and we want all people to benefit from the greatness this country has to offer.

I want capitalism that's based on voluntary co-operation, not sociopathic winner-take-all:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...m_source=atlfb


ETA a closing statement by Carnegie: "There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony."

To have been insulted as a dimwitted simpleton in such an eloquent fashion reflects a certain arrogance with a touch of pity. Kind of ironic that simple thinkers could be out of place amongst more highly evolved life forms on a simple living forum.

Thinking of the wealthy as some sort of rainy day fund and turning over those assets to the same politicians who are conspiring to make them wealthy......well that doesn't seem like good "back woods" logic to this hillbilly. Last election was a sort of simpletons trifecta. Clinton was embarrassed, Sanders was bamboozled, and Trump was coronated.

[jp1]

In the last 56 years of presidential elections only twice has the loser spent significantly more than the winner.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...h-the-most-mon

And in congressional races the bigger spender wins over 90% of the time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...win-elections/

To be sure one could make the argument that correlation doesn't equal causation. Perhaps it's incumbency that matters more for congress. Or perhaps the ability to raise more money is indicative of a candidate's better electibility for other reasons. But regardless, if I was asked to predict elections based on only any one data point I could choose I think I'd choose the amount of money raised to make my prediction.

[catherine]

To have been insulted as a dimwitted simpleton in such an eloquent fashion reflects a certain arrogance with a touch of pity. Kind of ironic that simple thinkers could be out of place amongst more highly evolved life forms on a simple living forum.

Haha.. Sincerely didn't mean to insult.. I thought I called out your intelligence. I'm just tired of answering a challenge to the status quo with the same old "all you socialists hate rich people" argument.

Anyway, you'd think I've learned by now that in some places on this forum "east is east and west is west and ne'er the twain shall meet." So I've said my piece. Over and out.