Default
 

I'm thinking that that this administration wishes us to default in an effort to move us toward a European type economy. Am I that off base?

Maybe... but you are in the wrong form.

This is a political thread and should be posted the political form IMHO.

Carry on... SmileWavy

The plan is slightly more complicated than that.

Phase 1: Use the shutdown to destroy the opposition. Either the Republicans will fold or get savaged in the media--the administration's allies in the media will never place blame on Democrats, period. If this has to go to a default, so be it.

Phase 2: Once the opposition is destroyed, build up a bureaucracy that makes it impossible for the opposition to rekindle. Use the NSA, IRS, and ATF persecute and prosecute the opposition.

Phase 3: Socialism!

To PARF with ye poopyheads

better we go the euro way

then the GOP plans to turn us in to haiti
with 0.1%ers owning everything

OK OK. Off to PARF we go. I was just trying to get some discussion of not whether this is right or wrong, but whether the brain trust see's that this is where we are headed.

NAFTA anyone? Everything old is new again!

So the GOP would be responsible for destroying itself and the irony is they would have precipitated what they most abhor, Socialism.

If they really are that stupid then good riddance.

The reality is that the 0.1% already DO own everything. It's been this way for a very long time (not that that makes it right, but it's not a new situation). The problem is that the liberal "solution" to this inequality is to cook up government-driven "redistribution of wealth" schemes in an attempt to "fix" it. Nice sentiment perhaps, but very naive. Bear in mind that every single thing that government does is tainted by political agendas and agenda. Things are NEVER done just because they're fair, because government wants to be "nice guys" or because it wants to do the right thing. It acts solely because someone believes that the actions can be politically advantageous to them, whether to an individual politician or a party.

Because of this, how and what can government really do to remedy the inequality? The reality is it can't. It will do just enough so that the populace doesn't outright rebel while upholding the status quo to prevent a political coup by the people who really (the people at the top who really own the government and can influence election and reelection chances won't ever REALLY be threatened). So the reality is it's the people that have a little extra money above and beyond what's necessary for peasant-like survival (the middle class) that bear the brunt of government "charity". Government action almost always results in class stratification, which is exactly the opposite of what those who support it are supposedly trying to prevent. The people at the bottom get handouts and never develop the skills or motivations that would enable them to work their way into the middle class, becoming perpetually governmentally dependent, the people in the middle class never advance, being crushed by ever-increasing taxation and regulations and the people at the top get to keep the vast majority of their wealth and power, never really sliding backwards or giving up too much.

So what do you propose exactly? I agree that the wealth distribution in this country is obscenely unequal (note I didn't say "unfair" - there are some at the top who have genuinely earned their place there). The solution however is not to create "equal poverty for all" (which is what socialism does), it's to create equal opportunity and let people rise or fall on their own merits or failures. We can't be any more afraid to let people go who don't make good decisions and who don't apply themselves than we are of helping people who want an honest shot at a better life. This is where liberalism falls flat on its face. It wants equal OUTCOMES, not equal OPPORTUNITIES, regardless of what people do, contribute or don't.

I agree with most of what you said.
However, the taxation structure is highly biased on behalf of the established 1%....and always has been.

When mega corporations (i.e. employees) begin having the resources to retain a fleet of tax attorneys to pay zero taxes on trillions of income, it's an unjust situation to the small and medium sized businesses. They just can't compete on an equal footing to the mega corps who are a separate and tiered class of business entities.
Monopolies.

So does a monopoly fall under the rules of Darwinian capitalism?
Not IMO when it involves a legacy of preferential laws/actions/assistance/treatment funded by taxpayers and collected by the same government.

Two examples:
Health care costs would become a fraction of what they are now, if Canadian and Indian pharmaceuticals flooded the U.S. market at cost and foreign doctors were freely able to practice medicine here.
-Thus, the government AMA enforces a monopoly.

Transportation costs would become a fraction of what they are now, if the publicly-funded roadways were open to any vehicle and/or animals.
-Thus, the government NHTSA enforces a monopoly.