If you look back not so long ago in American history, the greatest period was, arguably, right after the New Deal all the way up until the late 60s. Something funny happened in the 70s: Corporation tax was massively lowered, and America has become worse ever since. The majority become worse and worse off (wages have steadily lowered since the 70s in terms of inflation, etc.). For any society to function, all members of that society put in. This is an undeniable fact. It's how societies function. The rich and corporations are hiding all their money overseas, as we all well know. Who needs $100,000 million every year? What would you do with all that money? A lot of that money could be going into infrastructure (high-speed rail, high-speed internet, solar technology, nuclear fission, bridges, roads, etc.), housing and other things to improve society as a whole.
The thing conservatives and libertarians can't seem to grasp is that when one section of society doesn't pay in (the rich), the entire society falters. You have to raise money from somewhere to use it elsewhere. To simply keep lowering taxes (and in almost all cases take very little to no tax at all) on corporations and the super-wealthy (remember, SirReveller, you are not super-wealthy; I'm talking billionaires here) is self-evidently self-destructive. It means governments have no money to use for reinvesting back into society. What conservatives also can't seem to grasp is how absurdly counterintuitive this is for their well-being and their country. I thought conservatives tended to lean towards patriotism? What is less patriotic than allowing the super-rich to swing elections, buy politicians, pay their workers as low as possible, outsource jobs overseas, pollute the very environment you inhabit?
The government have two places they can take money from (which they have to do): The rich and corporations or from anyone on a basic income. They know only the rich can afford to lend them money, and they know the people will be pissed, if they raise taxes on them. So, what happens is the rich (and countries like China--ha, how ironic, a filthy communist country holding most of a capitalist one's debt) lend money to the government; this means they get that money back with whatever interest they set.
Self-evidently, you have two choices (and only two): You either let the rich lend money with interest, or you just raise taxes on them until you get the money you need, anyway. Why would you choose the one where you pay back interest? That's fucking stupid, but it's what's happening.
This allows the already rich and powerful (who own most of the land and shares, etc.) to become even more rich and powerful. Neoliberals always go on about having competition in a strong economy (the only thing I agree with them on), but they hand power over to the already rich, and therefore remove said competition. Neoliberals are hypocritical and myopic.
Conservatives have been conned by the rich, and media controlled by the rich, into thinking cutting spending instead of raising taxes is better. It doesn't take a genius to see it is only better for the rich.
To have to explain this (for the X time) to (I'm assuming) a fully grown man is bizarre. This is why the left find it so easy call conservatives idiots. They can never seem to grasp very plain, obvious facts. They mistakenly direct their mistrust towards the government, when it should be directed towards the rich. They squabble over the rights of women, gun control, religion, etc., which redirects away from the actual issues (wealth inequality, climate change, etc.).
Edited by JapanAlex01 - 10/20/15 at 4:00am