Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
Well to focus more on you thinking the democrat party is more of a socialist program, which it is not...you dont mind me referring to the republican party as a fascist party?
|
It would be inaccurate to describe Democrats without qualification as "socialists." Some of them are, many are not. It would also be inaccurate to describe Republicans as "fascists" for the same reason (although I wouldn't much care what you said about either one). But I said nothing about Democrats. I mentioned "leftists," meaning persons who subscribe to and champion political positions characteristic or definitive of "the Left."
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
So let me get this straight, you do not support taxes? Because isnt that what taxes are, we give the government money to help pay for programs and needs of the country?
|
I certainly think that persons who benefit from public programs have an obligation to help pay for them, to the precise extent to which they benefit. E.g., motorists who use public highways cannot legitimately complain about paying fuel taxes; a person who is not burgled because many of the burglars are in prison cannot complain about paying taxes for police, courts, and prisons. But no one has any duty to pay for government programs which they have not requested, do not desire, and from which they receive no benefit.
Countries, BTW, and other defined group entities (societies, communities, cities, species, etc.) do not have "needs," except metaphorically. Any needs (and goals, interests, preferences, tastes) to be found in them will be the needs, interests, etc., of some actual individuals within them, and will differ --- often greatly --- from individual to individual. It is a common fallacy among the Left to refer to such defined, abstract statistical entities as though they are concrete moral agents --- persons --- and impute properties to them which only apply to persons. Often the properties imputed actually apply to very few --- if any --- of the actual persons making up the defined group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
Also Fortune 500s aside, do you honestly believe Spokane would have the number of businesses that it has without SBA?
|
It would likely have more --- or, at least, those it had would be more dynamic and profitable, since they were not being dunned to support that particular government boondoggle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
Or do you prefer the only businesses that should be allowed to do anything are the ones that have money already? Thus meaning the rich get richer while the poorer never gets ahead.
|
Urban, almost everyone who started any business, including the founders of most of the Fortune 500 companies, were "poor" at the outset. If you lack sufficient capital of your own to launch a business --- as most entrepreneurs do --- you have to obtain it from someone else. At that point you have two options --- you must either convince other private citizens that your business proposal and plan has merit, and induce them to willingly invest their own money in it, or you have to convince a bureaucrat that it does, who will invest, not his own money, but money seized from third parties by force. Which method do you suppose will be more likely to spawn successful businesses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife
So let me get this straight, one can survive and make great pay off of just a high school education because 100 years ago immigrants made it with less...with that analogy, the Mexicans coming to this country must be profiteering hand over fist.
|
Yes, they are, by comparison to the opportunities open to them at home. That's why they're here. And those who remain and settle, rather than work here a few years and return home, will, in another generation, attain income parity, just like their European predecessors.