Options
Ineptocracy
beatnic
Posts: 4,133 ✭
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-Ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
0
Comments
Yea, this Democracy crap is really not the way to go - it leads to SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOICIALISM. Hell, you really don't want to trust WE THE PEOPLE, do you? What a lot of socialist hoey. I mean really, God must have really loved common people because he made so many of 'em, right? So why should they even be voting? If a person hasn't earned at least a million dollars, they really aren't worth a crap as a human being, right? So why let e'm vote - reserve that for those who have a clue, & to hell with those who are the least among us, they're just an anchor around the necks of those who know how to produce. Just think what the REAL PRODUCERS could do if they didn't have to deal with all those slackers and incompetents.
Makes my head swim just thinking about it.
Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?"
All Righty Then ... too damn much simplicity for such a complex thing as a government or a country . There will always be difference of ideas, opinions , views , values , abilities , skills , morals , ethics , what people believe passes for intelligence , producers , religions , human tendancies , law and lawlessness , and so on and so forth .
Its what we do as a species that seperates us from the animal world , seperates us yes , but makes us better - smarter - more likly to survive ? Debatable for sure . Time will tell .
I will keep this non-partisan.
You have a president that just put thru a tax on the segment of society that employs the most people but the money made on that increase is equivalent to less than a month of current spending by our government.
you basically just came out and told your country that its okay to aspire to be mediocre since the government will pay the way for you to maintain your ineptitude.
if you had a coworker that didn't perform up to the standard and as such, you had to take part of your check and give it to them, you'd be upset. What if you had an employee that performed less than average but he got a raise because of how well other employees worked, would that be fair? No. I feel the same way. I'm all for helping the helpless like widows and orphans but I'm not going to be party to taking something that someone earned and put it in the hands of someone who did nothing.
The super rich get most of their money the easy way: buy a vote, or be born into it. Sure, some actually made their money the legit way, but most just walked into it and were thought to be "superior" and power players because of it... sorry, but they are just as petty and human as the rest of us, they are just statistically more greedy and cheat the system on a MUCH larger scale.
If we gave 2 **** about our economy, we would go back to the tax rates from the middle of this century... and tax ENORMOUSLY for anyone sending jobs overseas for whatever reason... not giving them tax incentives to do so, as our glorious GOP has it set up now...
political parties suck, but the super rich who are greedy suck even worse.
I dunno where this notion comes from that a small business is somehow more moral than a big business - both are in it purely for the profit motive, to make more money, so they can have a better life. You don't give raises to workers because of some "feel good" crap about morals - you give raises because they worked hard and deserve it, and also to retain the best talent, so your competitor doesn't offer them a higher salary and hire them away from you. You don't invest in your company because it gives you the warm fuzzies, you do it so your company grows and you can make even more money in the future. Blanket statement is a blanket laced with envy and jealousy.
Who cares that they were born into wealth? It doesn't affect you either way, so why be so angry about it other than pure jealousy? You keep attributing some kind of "superiority complex" mentality, but really, doesn't it kinda show how small a person you are that you need to be so vindictive?
Peter's Principle still holds true, and companies that let people in by virtue of their birth instead of merit will go into bankruptcy assuming the gov't doesn't bail them out to score votes like an obamination. If there's anything to be angry about, it's the organizations with political connections that get bail outs because they bought a politicians ear.
EDIT - and how the hell did we get from a t-shirt with a dictionary definition to talking about "how much is too much"?
Dwight Eisnehower imposed very high tax rates on the richest among us to pay for WWII, for the Marshal Plan, for the inter-state highway system, and for the TVA, but unemployment was very low in his administration. In fact, I am convinced that low tax rates on the "job creators" (in today's economy) do not create jobs in the US for US workers. They may create a lot of jobs in 3rd World countries, but they do very little for workers here at home. Conversely, they only produce wealth for the richest among us, while imposing an ever lower standard of living and higher personal debt burdens on the rest of us.
We live in a $15 trillion economy. The top 10% control about $1.5 trillion; the deficit for this year alone is about $1.6-$1.8. If you confiscated every penny (not just profits, but gross revenue), it still wouldn't be enough to pay for even 1 yr of spending; the US Gov't spends about $3 bill every DAY. The simple fact is, the middle class controls most of the wealth in this country; it's spread out quite a bit. If raising taxes is what you wanna do, the middle class MUST pay more, because that's where most of the money is concentrated.
The talking heads will yak on all day about the $700 bill Bush tax cuts for the evil/undeserving/adjective of your choice rich people, what they don't mention is that the tax cuts for the middle class cost $2.3 trillion, more than 3 times what the top brackets got. It's something every politician knows, yet none wants to say outloud - the middle class is where the real money is. Which is why you keep hearing about a VAT or national sales tax every time tax reform comes up as a form of steal tax increase.
I could go on and get into supply-side economics vs demand-side, but that's another can of worms.
Everything you've stated here is standard liberal dogma, from Obama's mantra of "social darwinism" to the belief that taxes have no effect on economic growth, to the belief that those who oppose tax increases want to essentially enslave the middle/lower class. I'm surprised you didn't mention how Republicans are waging a war on women.
Those are your words, not mine. I never said that, that is your interpretation. I have never believed that, and, God willing, I never will.
I do believe that many members of the far-right of the Republican party (mainly Teapublicans) who are refusing to raise any tax revenue in order to pay down our debt are using The Great Recession as an excuse to forever alter the social safety net in this country.
Our Representative Republic will not function without compromise in Congress, and I believe that those who refuse to compromise (both parties included) are the main reason this Congress has one of the worst approval ratings in US history. Grover Norquist is not doing the Republican Party, or the American People, any favors.
"...If raising taxes is what you wanna do, the middle class MUST pay more, because that's where most of the money is concentrated.
I have no problem with that, but I also want to see real incentives put in place in order to bring back so many of the jobs that have been exported to third world countries where the labor force is in virtual slavery. I find it particularly telling that, while we were engaged in the "cold war" the "job creators" were supposedly very proud of the fact that US workers enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the history of the world. However, as soon as the cold war ended, they literally broke the back of American manufacturing (in less than a decade) in order to drive wages and living standards for the middle class down, and correspondingly, profits shot through the roof for the "job creators".
The social safety net has been continuously altered since the day the country was founded, but I see your pt. We have a disagreement as to its size, but that doesn't mean I want to destroy the foundation of our modern society, nor do I see subsidies as the foundation of that society. Real GDP and tax receipts tells a different story
I believe that our modern society was founded in the wake of the Great Depression, when the social safety net was created, and when labor unions were allowed to form. These helped to create the strongest and most prosperous middle class that has ever existed, in conjunction with progressive tax policies, As I have stated, I believe that the Teapublicans want to use this Great Recession to eliminate both of these cornerstones of the middle class. The US will never get out of debt if tax revenues are not raised as PART of the solution. Those who insist that no taxes will be raised have intentions other thansolving the debt problem, I believe.
"...Real GDP and tax receipts tells a different story..."
We will just have to agree to disagree on that point.
Only time will tell which economic theory will lead to real growth