Quote :

"There are ways the public sector can take on debt, and this would be egalitarian."

That is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Why on Earth would you claim this? Interest on the debt is paid by tax dollars. Those dollars are collected in proportion to the regular tax rates, but they are paid to rich. It benefits the wealthy. Pretty simple argument. Why would you argue the opposite?

Quote :

"Debt in general doesn't mean anything; who holds the debt and how much debt, who lent the money, etc."

Yes, debt is general does mean something. It competes for capital.

In terms of the parties involved for private debt, the net debt always goes in the direction from the poor to the wealthy. The wealthy make most of their money from investment returns, not payment for labor (although hedge fund managers like to intentionally confuse these two).

10/22/2011 8:42:57 AM

Quote :

"ask this guy and his former people about how big government worked out"

Actually it was working very well for them in terms of education, wages, healthcare, compared to prior regimes. I think it was the whole "Had no actual underlying democratic system" part, along with the "literally dropped bombs on his own people" part later on, that led to what you see in that picture.

[Edited on October 24, 2011 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2011 1:16:33 PM