View Full Version : I'll leave this little gem here,
Your thoughts,
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-fdr-was-fiscally-conservative
Under Obama the downward spiral will continue... and no, FDR wasn't that great! Too bad now-a-days even if WWIII broke out it wouldn't fix our economy or lower the unemployment. Maybe if we get rid of the irresponsible CIC sure, we could try and fix it...
Not sure how spending more will get us out of debt. I think that he knows digging a hole to deep the best way out is to fill it in. Not to keep digging deeper.
Not sure how spending more will get us out of debt. I think that he knows digging a hole to deep the best way out is to fill it in. Not to keep digging deeper.
I don't think he knows that... my money says he's a big fat idiot who doesn't realize that "when you find yourself in a hole, put down the shovel and stop digging!"
What do I think? I think FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. Not for only what he did, but for what he didn't do or become. As a juxtaposition FDR came to power the same time as Hitler and Mussolini. All those leaders chose different paths to end their nations depressions. FDR chose a path that lead to the modern middle class we have today. Only when FDR's legacy began to be dismantled first under Reagan, later further under Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton did the nations middle class start to falter. It was FDRs banking reform that lead to the longest period of economic stability in this nations history. It was Clintoon and the other corrupt corporate whores on the deregulation bandwagon in congress dismantled that with the end of Glass Steagal. This allowed for the rise of the mega banks whose speculation insanity lead to our current mess. And Obama being the coward he is has not reformed this one bit. So be ready for part 2.
To say it was only war that lead to the end of the Great Depression is to also admit that Keynesian economics was was right all along. What is war but Keynesian economics on steroids. Its gov spending not private spending that fights wars. It was that gov employment to win the war that lead to the lowering of unemployment that much. What kept that unemployment lower was successive presidents who built of his legacies and reforms. The GI Bill which gave free college to millions of Americans (Gov spending) created a huge amount of Americans who had the brain power to send us into space and build this nation to todays point. Once we stopped investing in our fellow Americans and left it up to the market alone did that start to slide. Investing in infrastructure not just roads but in people pays off in long term sustainable growth.
The biggest problem this nation faces today has to do with unraveling over 200 years of trade policy. Once we started free trade with no tariffs, the American middle class began to slip. No nation can ever long term sustain itself without a manufacturing base. If we went to war today with China, I fear we might not able to produce enough stuff to win. All war at its core is economics. Its a measure of the amount of manpower and production capability. No amount of patriotism can overcome a lack of either.
We need to return to FDRs reforms. We need to start breaking up all the cartels and virtual monopolies. We need to regulate the banks WAY more. We need to have an economic plan for this nation that makes sure we still have manufacture at its core and not Wallstreet paper pushing and speculation. James Madison left us that lesson. We stopped listening to him and created NAFTA, GATT and China Free Trade. Which I think are all unconstitutional see Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution.
As to the welfare state causing our current woes........ hardly. If there was no Social Security our nation would be way worse off today than without. How many people could not afford take risk and start a business if their parents had no Soc Sec check. Many.
Not sure how spending more will get us out of debt. I think that he knows digging a hole to deep the best way out is to fill it in. Not to keep digging deeper.
You are correct....... what needs to be done is to end the insane taxbreaks. We need to return to the tax structures pre Reagan. We also need to shrink gov. We spend entirely too much on useless crap. Including wars that do nothing to make our nation stronger. I agree with Ron Paul on much of this. But not to his extreme. I think having a military that is all over the world creates stability. But we don't need to spend that much on it nor do we need to be in a state of perpetual war either.
Our tax system is so broke that people like Warren Buffet and other hedgefund managers pay less of a taxburden than their middle class secretary. We have a budget shortfall for reasons like that.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/01/an-empty-offer-from-the-super-rich.html
In my opinion capitol gains should be taxed the same as wage labor. Also long term capitol gains should not be just one year but 20 or something along those lines. Or treated all the same with exclusions of taxing the original investment plus the rate of inflation.
Why should those who do no work pay less taxes than a Dr?
tmleadr03
07-25-2011, 13:52
What do I think? I think FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. Not for only what he did, but for what he didn't do or become. As a juxtaposition FDR came to power the same time as Hitler and Mussolini. All those leaders chose different paths to end their nations depressions. FDR chose a path that lead to the modern middle class we have today. Only when FDR's legacy began to be dismantled first under Reagan, later further under Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton did the nations middle class start to falter. It was FDRs banking reform that lead to the longest period of economic stability in this nations history. It was Clintoon and the other corrupt corporate whores on the deregulation bandwagon in congress dismantled that with the end of Glass Steagal. This allowed for the rise of the mega banks whose speculation insanity lead to our current mess. And Obama being the coward he is has not reformed this one bit. So be ready for part 2.
To say it was only war that lead to the end of the Great Depression is to also admit that Keynesian economics was was right all along. What is war but Keynesian economics on steroids. Its gov spending not private spending that fights wars. It was that gov employment to win the war that lead to the lowering of unemployment that much. What kept that unemployment lower was successive presidents who built of his legacies and reforms. The GI Bill which gave free college to millions of Americans (Gov spending) created a huge amount of Americans who had the brain power to send us into space and build this nation to todays point. Once we stopped investing in our fellow Americans and left it up to the market alone did that start to slide. Investing in infrastructure not just roads but in people pays off in long term sustainable growth.
The biggest problem this nation faces today has to do with unraveling over 200 years of trade policy. Once we started free trade with no tariffs, the American middle class began to slip. No nation can ever long term sustain itself without a manufacturing base. If we went to war today with China, I fear we might not able to produce enough stuff to win. All war at its core is economics. Its a measure of the amount of manpower and production capability. No amount of patriotism can overcome a lack of either.
We need to return to FDRs reforms. We need to start breaking up all the cartels and virtual monopolies. We need to regulate the banks WAY more. We need to have an economic plan for this nation that makes sure we still have manufacture at its core and not Wallstreet paper pushing and speculation. James Madison left us that lesson. We stopped listening to him and created NAFTA, GATT and China Free Trade. Which I think are all unconstitutional see Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution.
As to the welfare state causing our current woes........ hardly. If there was no Social Security our nation would be way worse off today than without. How many people could not afford take risk and start a business if their parents had no Soc Sec check. Many.
Wow... Next you're going to say FDR was a fiscal conservative.
Wow... Next you're going to say FDR was a fiscal conservative.
It depends on your definition. Its fiscally conservative to pay your bills right?
What do I think? I think FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. Not for only what he did, but for what he didn't do or become. As a juxtaposition FDR came to power the same time as Hitler and Mussolini. All those leaders chose different paths to end their nations depressions. FDR chose a path that lead to the modern middle class we have today. Only when FDR's legacy began to be dismantled first under Reagan, later further under Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton did the nations middle class start to falter. It was FDRs banking reform that lead to the longest period of economic stability in this nations history. It was Clintoon and the other corrupt corporate whores on the deregulation bandwagon in congress dismantled that with the end of Glass Steagal. This allowed for the rise of the mega banks whose speculation insanity lead to our current mess. And Obama being the coward he is has not reformed this one bit. So be ready for part 2.
To say it was only war that lead to the end of the Great Depression is to also admit that Keynesian economics was was right all along. What is war but Keynesian economics on steroids. Its gov spending not private spending that fights wars. It was that gov employment to win the war that lead to the lowering of unemployment that much. What kept that unemployment lower was successive presidents who built of his legacies and reforms. The GI Bill which gave free college to millions of Americans (Gov spending) created a huge amount of Americans who had the brain power to send us into space and build this nation to todays point. Once we stopped investing in our fellow Americans and left it up to the market alone did that start to slide. Investing in infrastructure not just roads but in people pays off in long term sustainable growth.
The biggest problem this nation faces today has to do with unraveling over 200 years of trade policy. Once we started free trade with no tariffs, the American middle class began to slip. No nation can ever long term sustain itself without a manufacturing base. If we went to war today with China, I fear we might not able to produce enough stuff to win. All war at its core is economics. Its a measure of the amount of manpower and production capability. No amount of patriotism can overcome a lack of either.
We need to return to FDRs reforms. We need to start breaking up all the cartels and virtual monopolies. We need to regulate the banks WAY more. We need to have an economic plan for this nation that makes sure we still have manufacture at its core and not Wallstreet paper pushing and speculation. James Madison left us that lesson. We stopped listening to him and created NAFTA, GATT and China Free Trade. Which I think are all unconstitutional see Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution.
As to the welfare state causing our current woes........ hardly. If there was no Social Security our nation would be way worse off today than without. How many people could not afford take risk and start a business if their parents had no Soc Sec check. Many.
While I think you make a FEW decent points, I don't agree with you at all. FDR's plan was to spend-spend-spend and that prolonged the depression FAR longer than it should have gone on, as soon as congress put an end to it and issued tax cuts we soon ended the depression. Reagan broke it down? I think not, Reagan brought us back from a horrible recession that was on the brink of depression by cutting taxes and getting people to go out and spend more money.
While I think you make a FEW decent points, I don't agree with you at all. FDR's plan was to spend-spend-spend and that prolonged the depression FAR longer than it should have gone on, as soon as congress put an end to it and issued tax cuts we soon ended the depression. Reagan broke it down? I think not, Reagan brought us back from a horrible recession that was on the brink of depression by cutting taxes and getting people to go out and spend more money.
Its your opinion that FDRs spending prolonged the depression. I don't share that opinion. I think one of the biggest problems in the nation is people don't have a fundamental understanding of economics. This has been made worse by 30 plus years or disinformation. Supply side economics is a total failure.
The only thing that has built economies since the dawn of time is DEMAND. Supply will naturally meet demand. But if you only stimulate supply and there is no one there to buy your products..... it does not work. The only way supply side economics works is by using a credit card. But that ends someday too..... see today.
FDR knew that the only way to get people to buy more crap was to make sure they had a job. Any job.... Obamas biggest mistake is doing nothing more than Reaganomics and becoming Bushes 3rd term.
Let me put this real simple..... you own a business. You pay taxes. You get a taxbreak that is supposed to in theory mean you will hire more people. But you don't have any customers or even more customers or demand for your products in fact business is slow. Do you take your taxbreak and hire another worker to sit on his ass...... or do you take that money and pocket it? Perhaps you buy a new yacht. That might stimulate demand a little. But perhaps you just save it and do nothing with it. Regardless you would never hire any more people than what you needed for the given demand for your product. You would not stay in business long that way.
FDR knew that the only way to get people to buy more crap was to make sure they had a job. Any job.... Obamas biggest mistake is doing nothing more than Reaganomics and becoming Bushes 3rd term.
Let me put this real simple..... you own a business. You pay taxes. You get a taxbreak that is supposed to in theory mean you will hire more people. But you don't have any customers or even more customers or demand for your products in fact business is slow. Do you take your taxbreak and hire another worker to sit on his ass...... or do you take that money and pocket it? Perhaps you buy a new yacht. That might stimulate demand a little. But perhaps you just save it and do nothing with it. Regardless you would never hire any more people than what you needed for the given demand for your product. You would not stay in business long that way.
Obama is not doing what Reagan or Bush would have done- he's spending more money, claiming that by spending more money and furthering our debt we'll fix our economic woes... wrong. He may start to realize how wrong this plan was, but the reinvestment isn't really working if construction companies are hiring illegal workers and not paying taxes, or the workers send their wages back to Mexico.
In terms of business, the company I work at is family owned, we are comprised of 3 people, we don't have plans to hire anyone new and we have an increasing customer base, and thus if we get a tax break we'll use it to increase our profit by boosting advertising or some other form of growth. We have never hired more people than what we needed given the demand, and guess what, our company has been in business successfully since 1950... so I think we're doing just fine.
Don't take my word on it:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
The UCLA study that many economists site today.
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/0761501657
While I may not be an economist, Milton Friedman most certainly is and along with many other respectable economists endorse this book.
So, I respect your opinion but cannot agree with you despite how well you might present your case (and I respect a well presented case). I will put my stock behind the Friedmans of the world when it comes to economics before I take the word of someone I don't know.
Now why Keynesian economics or Austrian School (libertarian Hyack people) won't work either. Because of unfettered Free Trade. That blew a hole in our economy and no matter what we do, nothing will get better till be plug that hole. Obama can stimulate the economy all he wants but it won't work. The fundamental basics of the system are broken. Regardless of gov spending or no gov spending, if someone buys a product in the market and that product is made over seas that sends economic activity over seas not back into our economy. We put off that day of reckoning by giving people cheap loans. I made it all seem too good to be true and it was.
Manufacturing is the basis of all wealth creation. If you build nothing then you are just feeding off the left overs of that previous manufacture wealth creation.
Why is the middle class disappearing? Because we now have to compete with people who live in mudhuts. So until you yourself are willing to live in a mudhut, you can never compete with his cost of living. America is sliding to that equilibrium point.
Don't take my word on it:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
The UCLA study that many economists site today.
http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/0761501657
While I may not be an economist, Milton Friedman most certainly is and along with many other respectable economists endorse this book.
So, I respect your opinion but cannot agree with you despite how well you might present your case (and I respect a well presented case). I will put my stock behind the Friedmans of the world when it comes to economics before I take the word of someone I don't know.
Freedman is a moron in my opinion. His book the Olive and the Lexus is the best example. He failed to mention that Lexus was built up through trade protection and gov programs that ensured they would grow. Not from freemarket forces alone.
Cut and paste from an article written by Thom Hartmann.
Another great example of this is Toyota's success with their luxury car: Lexus. Toyota has been touted by free traders as a clear example of why free trade works, mostly because of the widely cited example outlined in Thomas Freidman's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
But again, at a closer look, the reality is the opposite of what Friedman naively portrays in his book. In fact, Japan subsidized Toyota not only in its development but even after if failed terribly in the American markets in the late 1950's. In addition, early in Toyota's development, Japan kicked out foreign competitors like GM.
Thus, because the Japanese government financed Toyota at a loss (for roughly 20 years), built high tariff and other barriers to competitive imports, and initially subsidized exports, auto manufacturing was able to get a strong foothold and we now think of Japanese exports being synonymous with automobiles.
Obama Drinks Friedman's Kool-Aid (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/obama-drinks-friedmans-ko_b_231722.html)
hollohas
07-25-2011, 14:52
FDR knew that the only way to get people to buy more crap was to make sure they had a job. Any job.... Obamas biggest mistake is doing nothing more than Reaganomics and becoming Bushes 3rd term.
Let me put this real simple..... you own a business. You pay taxes. You get a taxbreak that is supposed to in theory mean you will hire more people. But you don't have any customers or even more customers or demand for your products in fact business is slow. Do you take your taxbreak and hire another worker to sit on his ass...... or do you take that money and pocket it? Perhaps you buy a new yacht. That might stimulate demand a little. But perhaps you just save it and do nothing with it. Regardless you would never hire any more people than what you needed for the given demand for your product. You would not stay in business long that way.
^This is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" example. The owner can't create a job because he has no customers, he has no customers because they don't have jobs, they don't have jobs because owners can't hire...
So who can hire? Well, the government can! But how you ask?
Decreasing taxes didn't help so maybe increasing them will... Let's see...increased taxes will in theory mean Uncle Sam can create jobs. More jobs mean more people that can buy crap at the owner's shop. How does Uncle Sam make those jobs? Extra tax income in theory means Uncle Sam can now buy 100 new toilets for $50/each for the phase 1 retrofit of government buildings. Requiring hiring 10 new guys to install them and requiring the manufacture hire 5 new employees to make them because the demand is now over their supply capability. Good theory, there are your jobs. But what really happens? Instead Uncle Sam paid $500/each for 10 new toilets and neither the manufacture nor Plumbers.gov needed to hire anyone.
Giving government more money is not the answer. They have never proved to use it wisely.
A business owner buying a yacht is a lot more simulating demand than a $500 government toilet or studying the effects of cow farts on the ozone. I'm not saying we should give tax breaks so business owners can buy boats but I don't think giving that money to Uncle Sam is a great idea either.
Everyone should pay the same percentage income tax whether they make $10/year or $10 billion, no exceptions. What they do with the rest is their business. But no double taxing either...no taxing your savings, girfts, your death...
patrick0685
07-25-2011, 14:57
Freedman is a moron in my opinion. His book the Olive and the Lexus is the best example. He failed to mention that Lexus was built up through trade protection and gov programs that ensured they would grow. Not from freemarket forces alone.
Cut and paste from an article written by Thom Hartmann.
Another great example of this is Toyota's success with their luxury car: Lexus. Toyota has been touted by free traders as a clear example of why free trade works, mostly because of the widely cited example outlined in Thomas Freidman's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
But again, at a closer look, the reality is the opposite of what Friedman naively portrays in his book. In fact, Japan subsidized Toyota not only in its development but even after if failed terribly in the American markets in the late 1950's. In addition, early in Toyota's development, Japan kicked out foreign competitors like GM.
Thus, because the Japanese government financed Toyota at a loss (for roughly 20 years), built high tariff and other barriers to competitive imports, and initially subsidized exports, auto manufacturing was able to get a strong foothold and we now think of Japanese exports being synonymous with automobiles.
Obama Drinks Friedman's Kool-Aid (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/obama-drinks-friedmans-ko_b_231722.html)
I feel that if you insult/demean people it would be best you use their real names[Beer]
Do you like Red Rocks Amphitheater? How much money do you think that generates for the local economy?
I feel that if you insult/demean people it would be best you use their real names[Beer]
I can't speel. I admit that for all. I wish I was better at it and it is something I work at everyday. But spelling mistakes still don't change facts. They just allow people to question character rather than argument.
hollohas
07-25-2011, 15:01
Now why Keynesian economics or Austrian School (libertarian Hyack people) won't work either. Because of unfettered Free Trade. That blew a hole in all our economics and no matter what we do nothing will get better till be plug that hole. Obama can stimulate the economy all he wants but it won't work. The fundamental basis of the system is broken. Regardless of gov spending or no gov spending if someone buys a product in the market and that product is made over seas that sends economic activity over seas not back into our economy. We put off that day of reckoning by giving people cheap loans. I made it seem too good to be true and it was.
Manufacturing is the basis of all wealth creation. If you build nothing then you are just feeding off the left overs of that previous manufacture wealth creation.
^I agree with this. And this is another example of how .gov does nothing but screw shit up. The stimulus was supposed to help America...so they put in "Buy America" and "Buy American" clauses. Oh, but wait. They also included small print that says most ARRA Stimulus funds can also be spent on product from nations that are part of the FTO. Result, many ARRA funds went overseas.
Your above statement is also slightly contradictory to some of your previous posts. Higher taxes and fees DO drive much manufacturing to other countries...lower taxes is one of few important points companies use to determine where they locate their manufacturing.
patrick0685
07-25-2011, 15:05
I can't speel. I admit that for all. I wish I was better at it and it is something I work at everyday. But spelling mistakes still don't change facts. They just allow people to question character rather than argument.
ill agree, spelling doesn't change the fact, however it does diminish the presentation.
^I agree with this. And this is another example of how .gov does nothing but screw shit up. The stimulus was supposed to help America...so they put in "Buy America" and "Buy American" clauses. Oh, but wait. They also included small print that says most ARRA Stimulus funds can also be spent on product from nations that are part of the FTO. Result, many ARRA funds went overseas.
Your above statement is also slightly contradictory to some of your previous posts. Higher taxes and fees DO drive much manufacturing to other countries...lower taxes is one of few important points companies use to determine where they locate their manufacturing.
Ok Hollohas you are almost there. Yes gov. screwed it up. I admit that. But HOW did they screw it up? They took away the gov. regulations called tariffs. So less gov. interference lead to more jobs fleeing to 3rd world nations. So its not that all gov. is bad. Just bad gov. is. Meaning gov. that is bought and paid for by the mega wealthy interests who moved those jobs overseas to make more profits. I agree that the weakening of the "Buy American Clause" was wrong. Now whose idea was that?
As to me being contradictory. It may seem that way. But let me explain. Higher taxes and fees can drive companies to move manufacturing over seas. But that is only permitted because there are no trade barriers left to stop them. At the same time the cost of labor to employ any American is way more than the guy in a mudhut. So its all part of the same problem. When free trade with no rules in permitted with economies that are vastly different they will eventually start to come to some sort of equilibrium. Friedman was correct about that. What he failed to mention was that you would be living in a mudhut too. Congrats you can now compete equally. God bless America....... the American middle class is dead. Screw that...
Ironically once you are living in a mudhut and those same economic interests who own your gov. get another freetrade deal. This time with Cambodia.... they don't even have mud huts there. So..... Equalibrium will mean you lose your mudhut to compete too.
Now........ theoretically we could end up raising the living standards of the mudhut guy up something better. But the middle ground between a mudhut and the American middle class is still decimation for the common American.
Its wrong and only serves a narrow slice of America while destroy the lives of the majority of this nation.
Now......... Do you like Red Rocks? How much money do you think that provided in economic activity over the last 50 years?
hollohas
07-25-2011, 16:30
Ok Hollohas you are almost there. Yes gov. screwed it up. I admit that. But HOW did they screw it up? They took away the gov. regulations called tariffs. So less gov. interference lead to more jobs fleeing to 3rd world nations. So its not that all gov. is bad. Just bad gov. is. Meaning gov. that is bought and paid for by the mega wealthy interests who moved those jobs overseas to make more profits. I agree that the weakening of the "Buy American Clause" was wrong. Now whose idea was that?
As to me being contradictory. It may seem that way. But let me explain. Higher taxes and fees can drive companies to move manufacturing over seas. But that is only permitted because there are no trade barriers left to stop them. At the same time the cost of labor to employ any American is way more than the guy in a mudhut. So its all part of the same problem. When free trade with no rules in permitted with economies that are vastly different they will eventually start to come to some sort of equilibrium. Friedman was correct about that. What he failed to mention was that you would be living in a mudhut too. Congrats you can now compete equally. God bless America....... the American middle class is dead. Screw that...
Ironically once you are living in a mudhut and those same economic interests who own your gov. get another freetrade deal. This time with Cambodia.... they don't even have mud huts there. So..... Equalibrium will mean you lose your mudhut to compete too.
Now........ theoretically we could end up raising the living standards of the mudhut guy up something better. But the middle ground between a mudhut and the American middle class is still decimation for the common American.
Its wrong and only serves a narrow slice of America while destroy the lives of the majority of this nation.
Now......... Do you like Red Rocks? How much money do you think that provided in economic activity over the last 50 years?
I don't know anything about Red Rocks.
Now we're starting to agree a little...
I agree that there should be trade barriers but those should be directed at companies outside our country, not American companies. Charge them more to import...fine by me. Government regulations that regulate what other countries do in American is fine by me. I do whole-heartily believe in less government regulation and control of AMERICANS though. We should get special treatment (read: Uncle Sam doesn't bother us) for being American. In my view that's the role of the government, to protect us from the rest of the world at the same time staying out of our business. And that should include making easier and CHEAPER to manufacture here. Both lower taxes for domestic and higher tariffs for foreign manufacture among other things.
If Mr. foreign manufacture of some widget thinks it's unfair that he has to pay a high import fee to sell his widget in America then he should move his manufacturing here. Lower taxes on said American manufacturing would not only help encourage him to move his manufacturing here, it would help encourage others to stay here.
I don't know anything about Red Rocks.
Now we're starting to agree a little...
I agree that there should be trade barriers but those should be directed at companies outside our country, not American companies. Charge them more to import...fine by me. Government regulations that regulate what other countries do in American is fine by me. I do whole-heartily believe in less government regulation and control of AMERICANS though. We should get special treatment (read: Uncle Sam doesn't bother us) for being American. In my view that's the role of the government, to protect us from the rest of the world at the same time staying out of our business. And that should include making easier and CHEAPER to manufacture here. Both lower taxes for domestic and higher tariffs for foreign manufacture among other things.
If Mr. foreign manufacture of some widget thinks it's unfair that he has to pay a high import fee to sell his widget in America then he should move his manufacturing here. Lower taxes on said American manufacturing would not only help encourage him to move his manufacturing here, it would help encourage others to stay here.
Ok we are starting to see eye to eye here. You do know that the system the founding fathers put in place up until the early 1900s was a system where most all gov revenue was derived from import tariffs? If not research and learn, you would find it interesting. I advocate returning to a system where that is again how we base our economy. This has little to do with internal tax structure and more to do with disparities of competing with a 3rd world nation on equal ground. They have the advantage in a way almost akin to Guerrilla Warfare.
Now less gov regulations is not a panacea.. What you are really striving for is balanced gov regulations and fair ones. Because gov regulations keep your drinking water safe. They also keep your car from blowing up when you turn the key. I don't want to live in a society where its a gamble whether any of those things happen. I don't want to live in a society where companies kill at will and only stop when it costs them money. Thats sociopathic. Gov of we the people can decide laws to make those things not possible. That is a good thing too.
Now Red Rocks..........this goes back to FDR. FDR's make work programs created Red Rocks. Not the free market. But it was FDR's investment in the American workers and this nation when we built Red Rocks that later generated more economic activity. I would say a millions of times more than the initial cost to taxpayers. That was manufacturing creating wealth and that wealth creation created more wealth and still does to this day. Gov spending is not always pissing money in a hole. If we chose to use gov spending to build things that create wealth, then that is investing not waste.
But thats evil socialism........ nope its investing in America
In 1927, George Cranmer, Manager of Denver Parks, convinced the City of Denver to purchase the area of Red Rocks from Walker for the price of $54,133. Cranmer convinced the Mayor of Denver, Ben Stapleton, to build on the foundation laid by Walker. By enlisting the help of the federally sponsored Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Work Projects Administration (WPA), labor and materials were provided for the venture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rocks_Amphitheatre
Thats the evil socialist FDR make work programs........... that built something that created vast amounts of wealth for generations afterward. As I said before FDRs legacy laid the foundations for many good things in America. Only when we weakened his reforms and went back to the failed ideas that lead to the first great depression did things go wrong. But........ the people scream socialism..... really don't understand what socialism is.
Byte Stryke
07-25-2011, 18:36
I Like Pie
flan7211
07-25-2011, 18:37
I do have to agree with you whole heartedly on the protection arguments you make. This nation was founded, and constitutionally ingrained with protectionism. Alexander Hamilton (brilliant man) knew America couldn't compete with British free trade. Free trade btw was called the English school of economics for quite some time. Hamilton helped create a deep system of tariffs to support American manufacturing. Our nation has a long history of using protection of our industries to compete with the rest of the world. Since the Smoot-Hawley tariff though it seems Americans have shunned the protection that would restore economic prosperity. Smoot-Hawley didn't cause an economic disaster it softened the blow.
We need to ask ourselves a question in this country? When did it become a bad thing to protect America? We have members of both party's clucking around using terms like "free trade" when the only people who use such a term are the ones held at a disadvantage. Do you think China or India uses that term? No way they subsidize their manufacturers, penalize ours, and use currency manipulation to guarantee we have no access to their markets.
I am a Republican and can only ask when will our party stand up for America again? The party of Clay (whig which became Republican), Lincoln, McKinnley, and Eisenhower was a party based on America first. If one of our parties don't stand up soon what will we have? How long can a service economy last? I guarantee most of us whether rich or poor are in a service sector job. We need manufacturing. The only way to fix the debt crisis and put our financial house in order is to export our goods at a greater rate than foreign countries can import theirs. Tax or cut doesn't matter in the long run. If we are not producing we will eventually run out of cash, plain and simple.
Flan7211.... I whole heartedly agree.
If you want to read more about Hamilton's 12 point plan, it is posted here.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/17
Also FDR brought back tariffs and only when Reagan began to dismantle those did things go downhill from there. Since that point we have been feeding off the previous generations productions. Well like a cancer, free trade is finally killing off the host.
I also am an isolationist. Raise tariffs some, keep tax rates for investments and profits reasonably low, welfare without work only for widows and orphans, only go to war where there is a clear goal and an advantage to your country in victory, or when you are attacked:maintain a strong military to reduce the likelihood of attack, maintain borders, allow as much "legal immigration as is needed for the labor pool", if you are attempting to stimulate the economy with tax money make sure you use it for solid infrastructure which will increase velocity of goods, services, manufacturing, cut government waste, reduce red tape, maintain fair environmental regulations so we don't destroy the planet, but be reasonable about it so that our manufacturing does have a chance to compete because when we send the work to a third world country all we do is increase the likelihood of environmental damage. (Do you know that we actually import things like cement? Low value, high weight, but many local plants have closed due to restrictive environmental law.)
High tax rates on profits and investment=Less incentive to take risk of starting/expanding businesses, more incentive to move your investment overseas, offshore.
Do you have an employer? I work for a small business and I am glad that my employer makes a profit. When the corporation profits, they are able to pay me more and I can buy more stuff which in turn allows some other business to make a profit. The margins for most businesses are so small right now that even a small increase in the tax rate will cause a rise in price or a lack of profit. The owner will have no motivation to be in business and I won't have a job if there isn't a promise of profit. Profit is not a dirty word for the owner, worker, or consumer. Our country was founded by a bunch of people seeking religious freedom as well as individuals seeking profit underwritten by factors in England who loaned them money gambling on the profits to be made by (exploiting) the new world.
At the same time, it seems to me that corporations do need to be held in check, because they do not have a conscience. We also need to fear rule by the corporations as it seems that we are on a path where government is representing corporations better than it does individual Americans.
I am now rambling...
Good day,
the data about unemployment explains it all. If obama wanted to do the right thing right now he would take the massive cuts the true fiscal conservatives are proposing and stop this downward spiral.
the data about unemployment explains it all. If obama wanted to do the right thing right now he would take the massive cuts the true fiscal conservatives are proposing and stop this downward spiral.
How in the hell would massive cuts fix anything? If anything it would tank the economy over night. Its a great bumper sticker but a horrible idea in reality. You want to make massive cuts...... sure, cut all the insane corporate welfare. Why the hell did GE pay NO taxes? Cutting services that help the poor and the middle class just kill Demand in the economy. Without demand for products there is no need for your job or any business that employs you.
flan7211
07-26-2011, 01:27
How in the hell would massive cuts fix anything? If anything it would tank the economy over night. Its a great bumper sticker but a horrible idea in reality. You want to make massive cuts...... sure, cut all the insane corporate welfare. Why the hell did GE pay NO taxes? Cutting services that help the poor and the middle class just kill Demand in the economy. Without demand for products there is no need for your job or any business that employs you.
Let us make this point as well, taxes alone can't fix the crisis either. Only producing and exporting with the increase in revenue will really fix this. We have a table and we're going to set it. Republicans say cut, democrats say tax. Cutting could hurt the market as most major corporations are too dependent on the tit of government. Taxing could stalwart private spending and saving. If we don't use proper taxation, penalties, and tariffs to reindustrialize it is useless to continue this debate. Either party's plan is a short term fix for a long term problem.
Let us make this point as well, taxes alone can't fix the crisis either. Only producing and exporting with the increase in revenue will really fix this. We have a table and we're going to set it. Republicans say cut, democrats say tax. Cutting could hurt the market as most major corporations are too dependent on the tit of government. Taxing could stalwart private spending and saving. If we don't use proper taxation, penalties, and tariffs to reindustrialize it is useless to continue this debate. Either party's plan is a short term fix for a long term problem.
I agree on the short term fix for a long term mess.
But to drive home my point. Taxes have never been lower in the last 70 years. at one time corporations paid over 25% (1950/60s) of the tax burden Today its about 8%. At one time the top tax rate was 90% for those who made over 2 million a year in todays dollars (1950/60s) today its less than 35%. But even that is a joke because most of the uber earners don't work and get taxed on wages. They live on dividends.... and if they are older than one year, they pay 15%. So a Dr who saves lives pays over 35% for his earnings and a parasite hedge fund douche pays only 15% on his billion dollar vampire bite from our economy.
Something is horribly broken and like hell we need to cut taxes for upper classes anymore. The US economy grew by leaps and bounds in the 1950/60s with all those taxes. Today it is vastly lower and our budget short fall is insane.
As for welfare people.......... well maybe we should listen to FDR and bring back the Civilian Conservation Corps or other forms of gov work programs. If we are going to pay them welfare, make them earn it and build this nation something worth while.
flan7211
07-26-2011, 01:47
Couldn't agree more on your welfare point. Obviously Chicago school economic theories aren't going to fix this economy. I will step out of my conservative comfort zone and say that we are going to have to go down some unorthodox roads to fix some of these things.
Eisenhower btw raised taxes by a ton and most Republicans backed it at the time to balance the budget and update infrastructure.
Couldn't agree more on your welfare point. Obviously Chicago school economic theories aren't going to fix this economy. I will step out of my conservative comfort zone and say that we are going to have to go down some unorthodox roads to fix some of these things.
Eisenhower btw raised taxes by a ton and most Republicans backed it at the time to balance the budget and update infrastructure.
Eisenhower is to the left of Obama and Obama is to the right of Nixon too. Todays right wing are not conservatives one bit. They are extremists who serve those who pay them. The sell a bill of goods that they are. I agree with Republican Eisenhower on many things. I would have voted for him. Its sad that the GOP has chased out all the moderates. Its gotten so bad that Reagan could never make it in the party anymore.
Yes we need to think outside the box. Both parties are corrupted by moneyed interests. This is why we can't fix free trade. We need to fix our system.
I would accept raising taxes, if it were on a temporary and scheduled basis. Every plan is always like "This should reduce whatever, by this amount, over the next ten, fifteen, twenty, etc years." Seems to me that the US could make a more concentrated effort of saying, "We WILL reduce our debt by X amount over the next ten years by instating this specific plan. By twenty years, we will have reached this level of debt reduction by moving to stage two of whatever plan, etc."
That's how I work my budget. Pick some debt, eliminate it, take that card out of my wallet, move onto the next target.
Jumpstart
07-26-2011, 07:07
I would accept raising taxes, if it were on a temporary and scheduled basis.
lol "raising taxes temporarily". That's a good one Irv.[ROFL1]
ronaldrwl
07-26-2011, 09:10
FDR turned a recession into the Great Depression with his ridicules ideas of raising prices on goods and shorting money supply...... He was an fiscal idiot. But not a bad Commander and Chief.
Didn't think I would agree with Nynco on anything reading through the thread to this point but I will agree with the welfare to work/CCC program idea. Instead of just giving away money with little needed to qualify why not expect a return on investment? I'm sure there are more than a few on government programs that could pour concrete and asphalt. 2 birds with one stone I guess. The 90% tax rate thing though...yeah good luck with that. Seems like the surest way to push the best thinkers and businessmen into early retirement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when push comes to shove these boys will have no problem taking the ball and going home.
I also am an isolationist. Raise tariffs some, keep tax rates for investments and profits reasonably low, welfare without work only for widows and orphans, only go to war where there is a clear goal and an advantage to your country in victory, or when you are attacked:maintain a strong military to reduce the likelihood of attack, maintain borders, allow as much "legal immigration as is needed for the labor pool", if you are attempting to stimulate the economy with tax money make sure you use it for solid infrastructure which will increase velocity of goods, services, manufacturing, cut government waste, reduce red tape, maintain fair environmental regulations so we don't destroy the planet, but be reasonable about it so that our manufacturing does have a chance to compete because when we send the work to a third world country all we do is increase the likelihood of environmental damage. (Do you know that we actually import things like cement? Low value, high weight, but many local plants have closed due to restrictive environmental law.)
High tax rates on profits and investment=Less incentive to take risk of starting/expanding businesses, more incentive to move your investment overseas, offshore.
Do you have an employer? I work for a small business and I am glad that my employer makes a profit. When the corporation profits, they are able to pay me more and I can buy more stuff which in turn allows some other business to make a profit. The margins for most businesses are so small right now that even a small increase in the tax rate will cause a rise in price or a lack of profit. The owner will have no motivation to be in business and I won't have a job if there isn't a promise of profit. Profit is not a dirty word for the owner, worker, or consumer. Our country was founded by a bunch of people seeking religious freedom as well as individuals seeking profit underwritten by factors in England who loaned them money gambling on the profits to be made by (exploiting) the new world.
At the same time, it seems to me that corporations do need to be held in check, because they do not have a conscience. We also need to fear rule by the corporations as it seems that we are on a path where government is representing corporations better than it does individual Americans.
I am now rambling...
Good day,
+1
I think one of the biggest things that gets under my skin- I'm sure I'm not alone here- is the exporting of jobs to other countries. I'm not talking about textiles and sewing and the like, but services. One such company comes to mind- it's a computer company that rhymes with Hell... sending IT jobs to India they should be charged a fee by the government for not hiring in house (IE: Here in America), just because they want to save money. That would stimulate job growth here because a lot of companies that deal in outsourced support do so because it's cheaper, but imposing a tariff or fee against said company for doing so (thus making it equally as expensive as hiring here) would stimulate our job market. 2009 statistics show that the fastest growing graduate to job market is computers, but too many IT people aren't getting the good jobs at big companies due to outsourcing. Frankly, when I can understand the tech when I call for support, I get pissed and stop using your product. Levy fees for outsourced services.
I agree with Jamnanc, corporate rule of America is looming (many sci-fi novels predict this) and the faceless, soulless, non-representative corporation will not care about mine and your well being, only their profit margin. A good example of companies not caring would be from Fight Club, where Ed Norton explains how recalls work. If it would end up costing the company too much in settlements and lawsuits they issue a recall, if not, they can deal with a few dozen people being killed by their product.
Didn't think I would agree with Nynco on anything reading through the thread to this point but I will agree with the welfare to work/CCC program idea. Instead of just giving away money with little needed to qualify why not expect a return on investment? I'm sure there are more than a few on government programs that could pour concrete and asphalt. 2 birds with one stone I guess. The 90% tax rate thing though...yeah good luck with that. Seems like the surest way to push the best thinkers and businessmen into early retirement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when push comes to shove these boys will have no problem taking the ball and going home.
I never said we should raise the tax rate to 90%. I brought up historical facts to show that taxes today are at ridiculously low levels. We have had the Bush taxcuts for the last 10 years. They lead to a market crash. What makes you all think lower taxes more will fix anything. Esp the fact that we have a revenue issue. Its pure insanity. Trickle down economics, Reaganomics, conservative supply side economics call it what you will its all the same has done nothing buy explode our debt. The text book definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I never said we should raise the tax rate to 90%. I brought up historical facts to show that taxes today are at ridiculously low levels. We have had the Bush taxcuts for the last 10 years. They lead to a market crash. What makes you all think lower taxes more will fix anything. Esp the fact that we have a revenue issue. Its pure insanity. Trickle down economics, Reaganomics, conservative supply side economics call it what you will its all the same has done nothing buy explode our debt. The text book definition of insanity, SAYING the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Post fixed. Nyco, you are sounding like a broken record. Yes, we know, Bush sucks, Reagan sucks, FDR is the best president ever. Yawn. [BooHoo]
Post fixed. Nyco, you are sounding like a broken record. Yes, we know, Bush sucks, Reagan sucks, FDR is the best president ever. Yawn. [BooHoo]
So what your sayin is there is no use in trying to change your mind....you're stuck in your ways.
I would say that less government is always good for the country. Its the same as saying less cancer is good for the body. If you like more cancer in your body you'd love more government too.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 13:38
I would say that less government is always good for the country. Its the same as saying less
probably not a great comparison topic...
faux pas
I would say that less government is always good for the country. Its the same as saying less cancer is good for the body. If you like more cancer in your body you'd love more government too.
Ironically gov standards keep cancer causing carcinogens out of your food supply....[ROFL1]
Ironically gov standards keep cancer causing carcinogens out of your food supply....[ROFL1]
But latest studies show that listening to stupid gov members (especially the president) causes inner ear and judgement tumors.
But latest studies show that listening to stupid gov members (especially the president) causes inner ear and judgement tumors.
I would expand that to include 90% of our elected officials too.
Only ones I think are worth a crap (off my head) are Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders.
Bernie for President [Beer]
Ironically gov standards keep cancer causing carcinogens out of your food supply....[ROFL1]
I would also say that governement officials watching pigs fly by on a conveyor belt hundreds at a time for 8 hours a day are not keeping any safer. I think the company has more interest in keeping its food safe since its reputation and company is on the line. But I'm talking about government waste in general.
I would also say that governement officials watching pigs fly by on a conveyor belt hundreds at a time for 8 hours a day are not keeping any safer. I think the company has more interest in keeping its food safe since its reputation and company is on the line. But I'm talking about government waste in general.
Actually the company has more interest in bribing our gov to keep those regulations so you can crank up production. Killing people along the line because a cost benefit analysis. And if the news does not talk about it....... well kill away.
Great example is the lysteria outbreak about 8 years ago. Barely hit the radar. But killed A LOT of people.
I don't see it. I googled it but as far back as 2008 but it was in Canada. I don't remember hearing anything on TV, but then again I don't watch TV. To depressing.
Jumpstart
07-26-2011, 16:21
March 2006
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.... It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America ’s debt limit.”
-Sen. Barack Obama,D-Ill.
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 16:41
March 2006
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.... It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America ’s debt limit.”
-Sen. Barack Obama,D-Ill.
well that was before he got what he wanted.
Back then he was also running as a "Kenyan Senator"
Byte Stryke
07-26-2011, 16:45
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/09/22/kenyan-born-obama-all-set-for-us-senate-sunday-june-27-2004-sunday-standard/
Its enough to piss off the pope!!!!
here's the problem....
I don't think there's one of us that doesn't think our country is in financial trouble. I also don't think there's an elected official who doesn't see the trouble also
But. . .
The taxpayers just paid $899,000 to study penis size in gay men and their preferred sexual position.
http://www.newser.com/story/123730/feds-pay-for-study-on-gay-mens-penis-size.html
So we struggle to pay foreigners money we don't have, but spend almost a million dollars to find out if you're gay and have a small cock, you're more likely to take it in the ass.
Yep, the .gov knows how to spend my money better than me. Please tax me more so I can help fund this shit (with money we borrow)
March 2006
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.... It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America ’s debt limit.”
-Sen. Barack Obama,D-Ill.
Nice find.
March 2006
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.... It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America ’s debt limit.”
-Sen. Barack Obama,D-Ill.
Something that would be funny and ironic is if we quoted this to him and ask whether we should listen to this Senator or not. And if he says who said this rubbish?
Sen Barack Obama.
mcantar18c
07-27-2011, 05:39
Here's a quote for yall to chew on...
The budget must be balanced. The Treasury must be refilled. Public debt must be reduced. Arrogance of officialdom must be tempered and controlled. Assistance to foreign lands must be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. Citizens must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
Its been said before by myself and others that we're heading down the same path as the Romans and will end up just as they did.
At the time of the fall of Rome. All taxes had been shifted to the middle class (like today) the middle class was driven into debt slavery (like today) and the upper classes felt so deserving that they never served their nation in things like the military (like today) and then Rome fractured along political fault lines.
Rome did not end in 400AD. Half of it did.
Prior to that a political split happened. The small gov libertarians took over the Western Roman empire and the bigger gov public good type people took over the Eastern half.
The Western half ended around 400AD
The Eastern half lasted till 1400AD
Chew on that...
tmleadr03
07-27-2011, 08:25
At the time of the fall of Rome. All taxes had been shifted to the middle class (like today) the middle class was driven into debt slavery (like today) and the upper classes felt so deserving that they never served their nation in things like the military (like today) and then Rome fractured along political fault lines.
Rome did not end in 400AD. Half of it did.
Prior to that a political split happened. The small gov libertarians took over the Western Roman empire and the bigger gov public good type people took over the Eastern half.
The Western half ended around 400AD
The Eastern half lasted till 1400AD
Chew on that...
[ROFL1]
[ROFL1]
The conservative mime that 50% of America pays no taxes is a lie. That number deals with income tax alone. But regardless of income taxes at all pay levels FICA and other forms of payroll tax are always payed. Those revenues make up 41% of all taken by the federal gov.
Now those taxes only effect workers. Those taxes for the most part are only paid on the first 200K. After that, Soc tax is not taken out. So that tax falls disproportionately on the middle class.
Long term cap gains. Middle class people don't earn their money that way. They work for a living. Top tax rate on any investment held for 1 year. 15%... no other tax collected.
Work a job and you are subject to far more. Once again the middle class pays more of that burden per percentage of earning.
Now how do the conservative propagandists get the 50%. They only look at the income tax alone. Which yes the rich pay far more of that. Why, because we keep on cutting the wages of the middle class to the point where they are poor now.
Nynco, you may be the nicest guy in the world but for God's sake would you STOP proselytizing every time your fingers touch the keys? The upper class is so deserving that they never serve their nation (like today)? What a steaming tub of horse crap this is. My family is what you would consider upper class and my father served in combat, my brother served in combat and I served in combat. Now, fast forward and I own several businesses and am upper class and would give up everything I own right this moment if my country needed me again.
So, while I respect your [unique] view on history and it's [sometimes] accurate representation, the textbook talking points about the rich being over-privileged and the poor working man being stepped on is over the top. The top 50% of wage earners pay the VAST majority of taxes in this country. I know you claim to be a libertarian but these "middle class and poor are slaves to the rich" crap is right from the democrat playbook.
There is a reason I do not socialize with idiot libtards, they have a very myopic view of the issues based on their libtard heroes and the constant stream of puke coming from their mouths infuriates me to no end. I'm no Fox News junky here, I take the time to educate myself on both sides of the fence because, frankly, both sides are f'ed beyond belief and hardly a word that comes out bears any truth these days.
The downfall of the Roman empire was based on SO many things, not the least of which was the entitlements to the people and the "middle class" was a large part of that. Who pays for entitlements do you think - the handout fairy? And who tend to get the handouts? The rich? I think not! I don't know any rich guys on welfare right now...
Argggggh. Stepping away now because this is annoying me!
tmleadr03
07-27-2011, 08:52
The conservative mime that 50% of America pays no taxes is a lie. That number deals with income tax alone. But regardless of income taxes at all pay levels FICA and other forms of payroll tax are always payed. Those revenues make up 41% of all taken by the federal gov.
Now those taxes only effect workers. Those taxes for the most part are only paid on the first 200K. After that, Soc tax is not taken out. So that tax falls disproportionately on the middle class.
Long term cap gains. Middle class people don't earn their money that way. They work for a living. Top tax rate on any investment held for 1 year. 15%... no other tax collected.
Work a job and you are subject to far more. Once again the middle class pays more of that burden per percentage of earning.
Now how do the conservative propagandists get the 50%. They only look at the income tax alone. Which yes the rich pay far more of that. Why, because we keep on cutting the wages of the middle class to the point where they are poor now.
And 3/5ths of all statistics are made up on the spot.[ROFL1]
Oh and your "conservative propagandist" BS about how conservatives just make up that 50% don't pay taxes, well just turn to your own libtard heroes in the press and be sure to let them know that they are spewing conservative propaganda. I know, I know, the evil Bush administration probably made them do it (that and the terrible Reaganomics probably caused it but our hero FDR would have saved the day, BLA BLA BLA):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
And who doesn't believe this. My, my, it's Media Matters - aren't THEY just the pinnacle of fairness? Lord, man, get over yourself.
Oh and your "conservative propagandist" BS about how conservatives just make up that 50% don't pay taxes, well just turn to your own libtard heroes in the press and be sure to let them know that they are spewing conservative propaganda. I know, I know, the evil Bush administration probably made them do it (that and the terrible Reaganomics probably caused it but our hero FDR would have saved the day, BLA BLA BLA):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-tax/
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
And who doesn't believe this. My, my, it's Media Matters - aren't THEY just the pinnacle of fairness? Lord, man, get over yourself.
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Yes 50% of America pays no taxes........ only if you look at income tax rates alone. Learn to think past the BS.
You want to whine about me calling it conservative propaganda......... does it hurt your feelings. Well stop calling me or them libtards. You can dish it, but can't seem to take it.[Beer]
Nynco, you may be the nicest guy in the world but for God's sake would you STOP proselytizing every time your fingers touch the keys? The upper class is so deserving that they never serve their nation (like today)? What a steaming tub of horse crap this is. My family is what you would consider upper class and my father served in combat, my brother served in combat and I served in combat. Now, fast forward and I own several businesses and am upper class and would give up everything I own right this moment if my country needed me again.
So, while I respect your [unique] view on history and it's [sometimes] accurate representation, the textbook talking points about the rich being over-privileged and the poor working man being stepped on is over the top. The top 50% of wage earners pay the VAST majority of taxes in this country. I know you claim to be a libertarian but these "middle class and poor are slaves to the rich" crap is right from the democrat playbook.
There is a reason I do not socialize with idiot libtards, they have a very myopic view of the issues based on their libtard heroes and the constant stream of puke coming from their mouths infuriates me to no end. I'm no Fox News junky here, I take the time to educate myself on both sides of the fence because, frankly, both sides are f'ed beyond belief and hardly a word that comes out bears any truth these days.
The downfall of the Roman empire was based on SO many things, not the least of which was the entitlements to the people and the "middle class" was a large part of that. Who pays for entitlements do you think - the handout fairy? And who tend to get the handouts? The rich? I think not! I don't know any rich guys on welfare right now...
Argggggh. Stepping away now because this is annoying me!
Stop proselytizing....... well when I see someone post something that I think is false. I will tell them why and explain why. Or would you rather I just call you a conservatard like people call me a libtard and never explain why?
Also I never said I was a libertarian. I don't fall in any category well. I believe in libertarian, conservative, progressive and liberal ideals. Depends on the issue and I wish more people would stop being lazy and think things that way too. Its far easier to call your self one of the above and just jump on the band wagon.
As to me taking to time to educate myself on the issues. I could write a paper on most all topics from both view points. Does not mean I know everything. Heck I learn something new every day and I welcome the education. Just because I don't agree with you all the time does not mean I'm not educated on the issues. Perhaps if you were humble you would think your own view of liberals being that way could go both ways. Just sayin...
As I said before the top 50% only pay the vast majority if you look at only one narrow slice of the pie. Income taxes..... But once you look at wealth earned per percentages of society and what their total tax burden is, that is shown to be false....... by a long shot.
Let me explain that in a real simple way. 99 people in a room earn 50K a year each. Bill Gates walks into the room. We could tax the 99 people in the room at 100% of all earnings and Bill gates still pays more taxes than them. Thats why our system looks so fucked to you. Your paying attention to the wrong problem.
Well stop calling me or them libtards. You can dish it, but can't seem to take it.[Beer]
Call me whatever you want, I don't give a crap. I don't take offense to the conservative propaganda statement. So, yes, dish it out all you want - it's no skin off my back.
As for calling you a libtard, well if the shoe fits then wear it. Perhaps liber-tard is better and if you want to call me a conservatard then awesome. My skin's thick. [Beer]
I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything, but I'm not going to stand idle while you spew your take on things as if they are gospel and point out how uneducated or ill informed the rest of us are without making sure the other side of the coin is voiced. You're not changing your mind and I'm not changing mine either unless someone can actual prove I'm wrong. [Rant1]
We'll agree to disagree. Frankly I have better things to do with my time then go back and forth with you on a topic we'll never agree upon. We are both very passionate about our political beliefs, we'll leave it at that and know we are going to butt heads every time one or the other of us voices those beliefs.
[Flower]
I change my mind all the time.... I really do but I don't do that unless someone takes the time to explain something in a way that makes sense and proves me wrong in the end. Just saying I am wrong is not the answer.
So far I have laid out my proof. You just said I was wrong. How am I wrong? I am more than willing to learn and change position. Are you?
tmleadr03
07-27-2011, 10:57
So far as I can see you have done nothing but spew talking points and revisionist history of the progressives. I have seen no proof as of yet. As such there really is not much to comment on. More laugh at then anything.
So far as I can see you have done nothing but spew talking points and revisionist history of the progressives. I have seen no proof as of yet. As such there really is not much to comment on. More laugh at then anything.
Then you are willfully ignoring or not willing to accept a differing presentation.
Here read some of this. It has facts too.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And some of this. This has pay roll taxes at 36%. Which shows how hard the middle class and working class are being hit. So I was off by 5% but my number was pre crash. The GOP talking points leave out pay roll taxes... why? Because it proves they are full of crap.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
Here read some of this. It has facts too.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Nynco, you are proving that you are left leaning here (notice I didn't call you a libtard to spare your fragile sensibilities). Domhoffs work is the manifesto of all "progressives" and has consistently been referred to as fringe and highly controversial (and not just by the right mind you). You will see him quoted time and again by libertarians and leftists constantly. Also note that everything on that page is just updates since his original work in the 60's, and not really fresh insight. He is a self professed "progressive" which is the new fancy term for extreme liberal.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
Another leftist organization. Both the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institutions are well known liberal organizations and the two organizations teamed together to create the Tax Policy Center. It is essentially a 100% liberal Clinton inspired think tank.
All that you have proven here is that leftist organizations support your numbers. I'm not here to say that right is RIGHT, but saying that you are not a liberal while quoting liberal articles and research is not moving to sway others to your side, particularly those of us who are moderate or conservative.
And before you go and get your panties all in a wad, I'm not here citing to you Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or even Wikipedia for that matter - I know better than to try to prove my point by citing sources that are right leaning or user contributed (Wiki). When you cite left leaning sources it doesn't prove your point.
Nynco, you are proving that you are left leaning here (notice I didn't call you a libtard to spare your fragile sensibilities). Domhoffs work is the manifesto of all "progressives" and has consistently been referred to as fringe and highly controversial (and not just by the right mind you). You will see him quoted time and again by libertarians and leftists constantly. Also note that everything on that page is just updates since his original work in the 60's, and not really fresh insight. He is a self professed "progressive" which is the new fancy term for extreme liberal.
Do his numbers lie? No.... they are straight from the federal agencies. You just don't want to agree with his solutions. That still does not make the numbers wrong.
Another leftist organization. Both the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institutions are well known liberal organizations and the two organizations teamed together to create the Tax Policy Center. It is essentially a 100% liberal Clinton inspired think tank.
Clinton was a corporate whore. He was not a liberal. People need to stop looking at party identity. Would a liberal push NAFTA, GATT, China Free Trade or deregulation of the media (Telcom 96)? Hell No...... but if the corporate whores who own our politicians want those things they get them. So they send the guy with a D after his name to sell it. Why? Because it throws his base for a loop and they have no one to vote for because the Republican would do the same. There is no liberal anything in this nation nor conservative in our politics. The game is rigged there is only corporate oligarchy and you know I am right.
All that you have proven here is that leftist organizations support your numbers. I'm not here to say that right is RIGHT, but saying that you are not a liberal while quoting liberal articles and research is not moving to sway others to your side, particularly those of us who are moderate or conservative.
So basicly you will only listen to facts if it comes from your side....
You are determined, I'll give you that :).
Do his numbers lie? No.... they are straight from the federal agencies.
Come on, you're a smart guy - not naive enough to think that whatever side of the fence you are on is not going to put a spin on number that don't make sense to most people. Give me any set of numbers that confuse the average bear and I could spin it any way I want.
The game is rigged there is only corporate oligarchy and you know I am right.
No, I don't know you are right. I'll agree that we have some messes in this country and where capitalism is king there is going to capitalists behind the scenes.
So basicly you will only listen to facts if it comes from your side....
Well, sadly, you don't comprehend my statements. I did say that I would not cite sources from "my side" because it does nothing to prove the point. You did just that. My point is that your point is NOT valid just because you cite like minded sources. Period. I've read many economists, I understand the numbers to a large extent and, sure, many of the numbers you cite are correct but many have been twisted to serve the cause of the author. I don't agree with a great number of things on "my side" so I'll seek out differing opinions from YOUR side then I'll find information from an unbiased middle if they are there to help me weigh the BS and dig into the facts.
So you are being a pundit, pure and simple. When someone calls your bluff on your sources you attack rather than dig deeper and find the facts outside your like minded source pool to help convince others that you are correct. You have proven your point, I get it. I've read your sources and it proves exactly what you are saying, according to THEM. Now find me unbiased or even rightist sources to back it up and we can talk about changing minds. Don't show me one side of the story, give them both to me and let me decide. Maybe I'll change my mind and move to your side, but not until I see both sides.
tmleadr03
07-27-2011, 11:55
So basicly you will only listen to facts if it comes from your side....
Do you have a mirror near by?
Do you have a mirror near by?
Do you? Because encase I am mistaken, I am on a conservative board populated by gun people and I too am a gun rights advocate. So.... I guess I am not listening to or agreeing with both sides on different issues at all am I?[Beer]
Now Ranger, if you want me to dig deeper and you disagree, tell me why, prove your case. Just saying I am wrong and attacking the source is not a way of proving anything.
Now Ranger, if you want me to dig deeper and you disagree, tell me why, prove your case. Just saying I am wrong and attacking the source is not a way of proving anything.
I'm not the one proselytizing, you are. Saying things are just such a way and citing leftist sources as the gospel of proof. As you say: "I am on a conservative board populated by gun people and I too am a gun rights advocate." Why do I need to provide proof that already supports the beliefs of the majority? If I go to some progressive board then I fully expect that I would have to city my source and prove my point but here I really don't. Not all agree with me (or you) but enough do that I'm not spending the day compiling sources and numbers for the one guy I'm arguing with!
Frankly there is far too much that I would have to do in order to get you seated on my side of things, convincing you of this one thing is a drop in the bucket. So, I really don't want to convince you of MY position, I'm more interested in debunking yours :).
I'm not picking sides, although I think we all know my stance, but by perpetually repeating yourself, nynco, it is evoking a response and it's almost as if someone needs to say it....
MY DADDY CAN BEAT UP YOUR DADDY!
This pissing contest seems to have no end, so someone please put their dick away!
Do you have a mirror near by?
Amen, brother A-M-E-N. Head, wall, hitting.... [Bang]
tmleadr03
07-27-2011, 12:44
Amen, brother A-M-E-N. Head, wall, hitting.... [Bang]
And quoting progressive websites does not make for a convincing argument. Sorry. It just does not. Especially since not only have I read the left view of the numbers game, I have read the right. Then I took both those and compared it to what I came up with on my own looking at the IRS and .gov info with out the spin, just the numbers.
Then there is the history angle. More and more the history books are being changed. What our kids are being taught in schools these days are... spun, for lack of a better word, to reflect the views of the teachers. FDR was not a fiscal conservative. If the plans he enacted are soooooooo beneficial then why did the depression last longer and was worse in our country then in others that did not go on a massive spending spree like he did?
All I have heard are made up numbers with out backing and re-written history.
While I might have the time to argue against his "points" right now it does not mean it is not a waste of time to do so. By seeing what he is quoting and how he is presenting his arguments you can see that he has drunk the koolaid but still believes that he is a free thinker. You are not going to change his mind. And this thread raises my BP just reading it.
Yea, mine too, but I always like getting into a political debate with folks who do drink too much Koolaid. It's fun to see how bent out of shape they get - but I don't get to see the red-in-the-face that I enjoy so much when debating in person!
And quoting progressive websites does not make for a convincing argument. Sorry. It just does not. Especially since not only have I read the left view of the numbers game, I have read the right. Then I took both those and compared it to what I came up with on my own looking at the IRS and .gov info with out the spin, just the numbers.
Then there is the history angle. More and more the history books are being changed. What our kids are being taught in schools these days are... spun, for lack of a better word, to reflect the views of the teachers. FDR was not a fiscal conservative. If the plans he enacted are soooooooo beneficial then why did the depression last longer and was worse in our country then in others that did not go on a massive spending spree like he did?
All I have heard are made up numbers with out backing and re-written history.
While I might have the time to argue against his "points" right now it does not mean it is not a waste of time to do so. By seeing what he is quoting and how he is presenting his arguments you can see that he has drunk the koolaid but still believes that he is a free thinker. You are not going to change his mind. And this thread raises my BP just reading it.
Well the crux of your proving me wrong is you don't agree with the messenger. Why else just whine about it being a liberal site. I can understand not taking the time to prove me wrong. Its your time. But don't expect me not to point out when you are using a "Kill The Messenger, ad hominem" logical fallacy.
As to who writes the history books and you thinking they are crap. Well TX sets the standards for all textbooks in America. Read up on the issue, you will see that liberals don't TX does. They do that because of their mass buying power and them having nutballs on the TX school textbook review board. I think one of the most glaring examples was taking out lessons about the founders of this nation and citing Newt and Rush Limbaugh as sources for anything.
As to the numbers...... historical fact..... the middle class has lost ground steadily since Reagan...While the wealthy have more than quadrupled their wealth. But that fact is always left out of the right wing sites. Why? Because it does not support their position.
Nynco, you get the last word so congratulations. I've put enough energy into this now way out of control thread already. I'll battle you again in the future, I promise!
Nynco, you get the last word so congratulations. I've put enough energy into this now way out of control thread already. I'll battle you again in the future, I promise!
Ranger.... I say this honestly. Thanks for the healthy debate. I think both sides need to discuss more and stop just listening to those they already agree with. The more we do this, the better our nation will become and the faster we may find the solutions to our issues.
If only we could get the congress to be less dysfunctional[Beer] too.
Stop proselytizing.......
Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion). The word proselytize is derived ultimately from the Greek language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) prefix 'πρός' (toward) and the verb 'ηλυτος' (went). Historically in the Koine Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek) Septuagint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) and New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament), the word proselyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte) denoted a gentile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile) who was considering conversion to Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_to_Judaism). Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity) (and earlier Gentiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentiles)), it also refers to other religions' attempts to convert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_conversion) people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of proselytizing are often negative and the word is commonly used to describe attempts to force people to convert; however, this article will be using it in the more neutral meaning of attempting to convert.
Good word. I had to look it up. I'm not convinced yet but all my time on forum boards or newsgroups there is a guy like this. It could be the same guy since the right doesn't imprison those that disagree with them like the left does, because they are right and not super uptight about things. But he could have found his way over hear. He'll be set on spreading bad information get banned then come back under a different name.
Its fun to catch him in a lie, because they all tend to be lies. However, he doesn't learn anything and will just keep coming back with the same lame ass talking points.
I for one was enjoying the peace and quiet here. I guess those days are over, time to adjust and confront.
Oops, I meant to quote Ranger and not nynco since it was his word. But the story in the same.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.