# Morality of Wealth Redistribution



## Wiseacre (May 17, 2011)

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 17, 2011)

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 17, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



We sure do here in Louisiana... the Feds rape us for billions and then give it to fuckwad blue states so they can make their transfer payments.


----------



## AmericanFirst (May 17, 2011)

If someone is truly deserving of welfare then fine, but someone who is lazy and milks the system they can fly a kite.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 17, 2011)

Social programs are only "good" when they are temporary in nature unless the person is proven incapable of providing financial needs. 
Unemployment insurance is a great example of a "good" social program.
Food Stamps, AFDC etc. etc, is a great example of a failed program.


----------



## syrenn (May 17, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?




Do you know anything about ..piracy?


just saying.


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Social programs are only "good" when they are temporary in nature unless the person is proven incapable of providing financial needs.
> Unemployment insurance is a great example of a "good" social program.
> Food Stamps, AFDC etc. etc, is a great example of a failed program.


 
On the mark.


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


 
HOW does gubmint subsidize Oil companies? Giving them TAX breaks to get the oil flowing? Producing revenue? Creating JOBS?

Tax breaks aren't giving them _anything...._but allowing them to KEEP their money to invest for commerce that affects the entire economy.

You Statists have alot to learn.


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


 
Ultimate coercion..money laundering...


----------



## mudwhistle (May 17, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



Hey, I've got a great idea.......

Why doesn't the government give back all of the money to those who earned it?????:


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


 
And cease giving it to the MOOCHER class?


----------



## georgephillip (May 17, 2011)

*Like Government Sachs?*


----------



## rightwinger (May 17, 2011)

This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society. 
The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others

The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich


----------



## sparky (May 17, 2011)

The T said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...




yeah, it gets old watching them grovel before Congress>


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

sparky said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


 
And the only reason they do it is for thier POWER over others...and what's sickening is so many BUY into the promise of Gubmint taking care of things the people should DO for themselves...the INDIVIDUAL should do for themselves...


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

I LOATHE giving my tax money to _moochers._


----------



## Immanuel (May 17, 2011)

Redistribution of wealth is immoral.

However, I have to agree with RW on this one.  Today, in this country, the redistribution of wealth is not going from rich to poor.  It is rather going from the middle class to the rich.  That does not make it any less immoral.

We should all be paying for the services this country provide for us.  That is why we should be paying taxes.  We should not have to pay taxes so that corporations can have larger profit margins.  $21 Billion to five oil companies... WTF?  One of those companies of which made almost $11 billions in the first quarter alone.

Immie

PS Don't mind me... I'm pissed off at the world lately.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 17, 2011)

The T said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



Because they give oil companies more breaks than they do most other industries. That's why. The oil industry isn't the only industry that creates jobs, and fuels (no pun intended) our economy.

I can't think of one other industry that gets as nice benefits from the government as the oil companies do. Now I'm not suggesting we take away people's earned money-I'm saying let's treat all industries on the same standard. The government showing preference for some industries over others isn't really an example of capitalism, if anything it's closer to another system that many people on the right bash (and rightfully so).


----------



## Steelplate (May 17, 2011)

Me too. I loathe giving my Tax money towards policies that allow the extremely wealthy to control this country by way of buying politicians and policy.

Hey... You know how you conservatives feel abortion is murder and that a scared pregnant teenager ought to be held accountable and perhaps be deemed a murderer if she aborts?

That's the way I feel about our corporate class. If they want to abandon their home country and choose to invest in China, Mexico, India and other countries... they should be held accountable, deemed a traitor and be deported to the country that makes them their fortune.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 17, 2011)

The T said:


> I LOATHE giving my tax money to _moochers._



Me too. So let's stop taxing the oil companies at a much lower rate than almost all other industries. Let's have a fair tax, or are you not for that?

Let's end the concept of donor states who fund other states. I'm tired of picking up the bill for other states, and giving them my hard earned money (and living in Florida like I do-I hope you are too).


----------



## Anachronism (May 17, 2011)

The Government reaching into my pocket to take money to give to anyone else is Immoral. Regardless of whether it's the little old lady down the road (Medicare), the high school dropout in the next apartment (welfare), or some business/corporation. That is NOT the proper purpose of Government and never has been.


----------



## Too Tall (May 17, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



Perhaps you will tell the board what tax breaks that the oil companies get that other businesses do not get.  I dare you!


----------



## Trajan (May 17, 2011)

I take the dennis miller view; I am all for helping the helpless, but not a dime for the clueless.


----------



## rightwinger (May 17, 2011)

The T said:


> I LOATHE giving my tax money to _moochers._



Especially moochers who charge $5 a gallon for gas


----------



## Too Tall (May 17, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> The Government reaching into my pocket to take money to give to anyone else is Immoral. Regardless of whether it's the little old lady down the road (Medicare), the high school dropout in the next apartment (welfare), or some business/corporation. That is NOT the proper purpose of Government and never has been.



Medicare is a government insurance program that requires every one that works for a wage or a salary to have 1.45% of their gross pay sent to the government.  The employer matches that so Medicare get 2.9% of every dollar earned.

Unless you think that someone should pay the premiums for insurance and than be denied the insurance claim, leave that little old lady alone.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 17, 2011)

> Morality of Wealth Redistribution



There is no wealth redistribution program in the United States. Food Stamps arent wealth redistribution because the majority of recipients are children, the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor. TANF isnt wealth redistribution because it requires community service or a similar activity to remain eligible, its also time-limited. Unemployment comp and workmans comp arent wealth redistribution, nor are they welfare, theyre insurance benefits. Those receiving UC are also required to job search or retrain for other work to remain eligible. SSI is for disabled individuals, SSDI is for those who have worked more than 10 years on a pay roll and become disabled, along with Medicare, and Medicaid is mostly for children, the elderly, and disabled. 

The myth of wealth redistribution is predicated on ignorance and/or political dogma designed to demonize the disadvantaged and poor for political gain.


----------



## Too Tall (May 17, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > I LOATHE giving my tax money to _moochers._
> ...



I will wager that you will ignore this:



> Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.
> *
> That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways*. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.


----------



## Anachronism (May 17, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> Medicare is a government insurance program that requires every one that works for a wage or a salary to have 1.45% of their gross pay sent to the government.  The employer matches that so Medicare get 2.9% of every dollar earned.
> 
> Unless you think that someone should pay the premiums for insurance and than be denied the insurance claim, leave that little old lady alone.



The problem is that the little old lady is getting back significantly more than she ever put into the system. Likewise, I would be more than willing to sign away my right to ever collect anything from that system to not have to pay into it.


----------



## manifold (May 17, 2011)

> What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?



My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.


----------



## snjmom (May 17, 2011)

manifold said:


> > What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.



Yep.  Best stabilizer of an economy and a society, hands down.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 17, 2011)

Isn't this the over-used line that claims that income inequality has something to do with standard of living, unemployment, and wages? Because it doesn't, income equality means that people are content to have bad wages, and never rise above their station.


----------



## rdean (May 17, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I agree.  Piling debt on the middle class just to give trillions in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires is just wrong.  Stop the "transfer of wealth".  It's not "moral".  If they are not going to join the military to protect this country which protects the wealth the right wing politicians they bought gave them, then they have to pay their fair share some other way.


----------



## Too Tall (May 17, 2011)

Anachronism said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > Medicare is a government insurance program that requires every one that works for a wage or a salary to have 1.45% of their gross pay sent to the government.  The employer matches that so Medicare get 2.9% of every dollar earned.
> ...



How do you feel about the little old lady that paid for Medicare all of her working life and died the day before she turned 65? 

If you bought a million dollar life insurance policy today and dropped dead tomorrow, should your beneficiary be paid the million dollars?

My position is that insurance is insurance.  The fact that the government has no business forcing you or me to buy an insurance policy is irrelevant to this discussion..


----------



## Anachronism (May 17, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> My position is that insurance is insurance.  The fact that the government has no business forcing you or me to buy an insurance policy is irrelevant to this discussion..



I disagree. In fact that is the ONLY relevant discussion to be had on this topic so far as I'm concerned.


----------



## The T (May 17, 2011)

rdean said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


 
YOU act as the MONEY belongs to GUBMINT or something DEANY...

Wake up..._it isn't._


----------



## Care4all (May 17, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



or the banks, insurance companies, automakers, railroad barons of the past, airports/airlines, refineries, nuke plants, health insurers etc etc etc....

or even better, taking the SURPLUS social security taxes and using the working man's money to pay for all the things INCOME taxes were suppose to be paying for during the last 3 decades, while reducing the taxes on those who do not contribute to SS taxes over 100k of their income?

or taking hundreds of billions of tax dollars from us to give to the military industrial complex manufacturers, or the haliburtons of the world who cheat and steal and over charge us ?

yeah, i don't fancy the redistribution of wealth either.....


----------



## Ernie S. (May 17, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Redistribution of wealth is immoral.
> 
> However, I have to agree with RW on this one.  Today, in this country, the redistribution of wealth is not going from rich to poor.  It is rather going from the middle class to the rich.  That does not make it any less immoral.
> 
> ...



What is wrong with a corporation making 11 billion on 114 billion in revenue? That's slightly under 10% margin. Do you realize that in the same quarter Microsoft made $5.71 billion on $16.43 billion in revenues? That's about 35% margin, Huge corporations make huge amounts of profit.


----------



## Care4all (May 18, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Redistribution of wealth is immoral.
> ...



no huge corporations do not in general make huge profits.

walmart, a huge corporation makes about 3.5% in yearly profits...

the several corporations that i worked for had the goal of 4%-6% in profit....4% considered good, 6% considered a dream come true.

microsoft is an anomaly, and monopolistic measures helped to bring them to that level of profit margins, plus...giving credit where credit is due they created things we ALL wanted....

the oil industry has created nothing, oil comes out of the ground, whoop-die doo, and are selling a product with guaranteed consumers...not even consumers they have to win over ....we are guaranteed customers....

where microsoft had to CREATE something and make consumers love them for it...

it really is different ernie.....

i am not saying we should do anything with their EXCESSIVE profits, i'm just telling you that microsoft and exxon are NOT comparable....they are apples and oranges....

and telling you 10% profit margin...that means the money left after all ceo salaries, all payroll, all expenses and overhead, all bonuses, all benefits, the cost of goods, the airplanes and travel and shipping costs/electric/airconditioning/heating bills/supplies  and marketing expenses are PAID for.....trust me, IT'S a HUGE percentage compared to MOST businesses in this country....yes, there are some exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 18, 2011)

The fact is that huge corps have huge amounts of money invested, and if they don't turn a decent ROI then that money goes elsewhere.   And that in turn means less R&D, less expansion, fewer jobs created.   Why is it okay for a little company with one million in revenue that makes $100,000 profit is okay but the trillion dollar company making the same 10% is pilloried?


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 18, 2011)

I suppose I should just donate to socialism..

Wouldn't that be redundant????


----------



## hendrickL (May 18, 2011)

Very interesting topic...


----------



## ba1614 (May 18, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



 What benefit(s) and/or breaks do the oil industry get that others don't?


----------



## Claudette (May 18, 2011)

Trajan said:


> I take the dennis miller view; I am all for helping the helpless, but not a dime for the clueless.



Some folks have a hard time getting it through their heads that Govt isn't here to take care of anyones individual needs.

Govt is here to run and protect the country and to deal with the issues to do just that. 

Its not here to take money from those that earned it and give it to those that didn't. 

Its not here to take care of an individual because they made stupid irresponsible decisionis in their lives. 

Its not here to support freeloaders who are simply to lazy to take care of themselves. 

As for corps and business getting tax dollars?? If you don't like it then get off your ass and do something about it.  Call your congresscritters and tell them to get rid of tax loopholes, tax breaks and all subsidies. Its the Clowns in Congress who make those decisions.


----------



## MarcATL (May 18, 2011)

The T said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


What jobs do oil companies create?

How many?

Where are they?


----------



## cutter (May 18, 2011)

Does all the money in the country belong to the Government? Is it theirs to distribute as they see fit? I always thought if you work hard and make money you can spend it as you see fit or save it and create wealth and be as rich as you are able too. Is it the Governments job to make me as rich as they feel I should be?


----------



## rightwinger (May 18, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> Isn't this the over-used line that claims that income inequality has something to do with standard of living, unemployment, and wages? Because it doesn't, income equality means that people are content to have bad wages, and never rise above their station.



Many are content with their lot in life. Others work two jobs to try to sustain a family, pay medical bills, afford a car and hopefully educate their children

Where income inequality comes in is where our society establishes rules that make it easier for the rich to accumulate wealth and more difficult for working Americans to maintain a basic standard of living

Guess who makes the rules?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > I LOATHE giving my tax money to _moochers._
> ...



End all forms of entitlements from the government....

Hell.. it's all smoke and mirrors.... for power... use higher taxes to subsidize corn to make it cheaper... then blind side the tax payer again after it is made into ethanol or corn syrup by adding additional taxes to make those things more expensive...

And no, assholewinger.... there is not wealth redistribution going to the 'evil rich'... there is MUCH more of a system to take away from those who earn or who are successful.... and we CERTAINLY still do not see you calling for a system of equal % taxation on all, irregardless of income, on every dollar earned.... so your subjective 'fairness' approach is still duly noted


----------



## Care4all (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> The fact is that huge corps have huge amounts of money invested, and if they don't turn a decent ROI then that money goes elsewhere.   And that in turn means less R&D, less expansion, fewer jobs created.   Why is it okay for a little company with one million in revenue that makes $100,000 profit is okay but the trillion dollar company making the same 10% is pilloried?



Their investors ROI runs around *20-25* if memory serves................yes their return on investment is HUMONGOUS....  

I can't even get a 2% return on my investment with the bank in a year....I was happy happy child when I was getting 5% return in interest on my CD's, this 1-2% return stinks BIGTIME (when my and your tax monies bailed them out.!)?

Can YOU make a 25% return each year on what YOU invest?  Holy Moly, I'd be a millionaire if not billionaire if I had gotten those kind of roi's.on my investments all my working life.!


Here, i went and looked up their most recent ROI....i was a little off but it is still HUGE.

Return on equity (TTM)

23.00%

Return on assets (TTM)

10.90%

Return on investment (TTM)

18.90%


http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/xom/profile


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

I don't believe in people getting their taxes lowered simply because they have children.

THAT is the single biggest redistribution of wealth that occurs in this country.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> I don't believe in people getting their taxes lowered simply because they have children.
> 
> THAT is the single biggest redistribution of wealth that occurs in this country.



Nor do I believe in handouts via involuntary contribution just because they have children


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 18, 2011)

ba1614 said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Since I've been asked this by a few people, I just respond to this post, rather than quote a whole bunch.

They tend to be taxed at a much lower rate for capital investments, than other companies.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

Churches should not be exempt from property taxes.  That is another massive redistribution of wealth.


----------



## editec (May 18, 2011)

The banksters were FREE enough to load us with their toxic assets while retaining the assets they have that were not TOXIC.

How do we feel about_ that_ WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Churches should not be exempt from property taxes.  That is another massive redistribution of wealth.



~50% of citizens are currently exempt from federal income taxes.... And some even get money BACK from the government when nothing was contributed... That is another massive redistribution of wealth


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.


Socialism is involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude is a form of slavery.
Slavery is the antithesis of liberty.

There may be some moral obligation to provide charity for those that need it - but that's your choice to make, and no one has standing to force you to do so.  In moral terms, charity, especially Christian charity, is meaningless when it is not derived from free will.

As for people that simply choose to not provide for themselves -- there's NO moral imperative to provide for them.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Churches should not be exempt from property taxes.  That is another massive redistribution of wealth.


Only to people who must self-servingly redefine words in order to make a point.


----------



## rightwinger (May 18, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Churches should not be exempt from property taxes.  That is another massive redistribution of wealth.
> ...



The people who do not make enough to pay taxes....how much wealth are they accumulating?  They are struggling to pay the rent, medical bills, raise children

How much do you think they have stashed away?

Now look at the 2% who control 40% of available wealth. How much do they have stashed away? How much do they shield from taxes?


----------



## AquaAthena (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


*
"This country does not like freeloaders...."*

This country is what made freeloaders. Our elected leaders since FDR. Our high taxes on the 50% that pay them, are the victims.


----------



## Anachronism (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> I don't believe in people getting their taxes lowered simply because they have children.



Agreed, but I'll take it to an even bigger level.... I don't believe in people getting their taxes lowered for ANY reason. 

I am for a true FLAT TAX. A certain percentage (maybe 7-10%) of ALL "NEW" (I'll define that for you in a moment) INCOME. No deductions. No exceptions. If it's 7% and you make $1000 a year, you pay $70 in taxes. If you make $10 Million a year you would pay $700,000 in taxes. Very simple. Very straight forward. No complicated forms.

As for what I define as "NEW" INCOME.... that would be the value of all income and/or benefits (stock options, company vehicles, etc....) that you receive in a year which are not derived from money you, or someone else have already made and been taxed on. For example..... salary from a job, stock options, use of company vehicles, housing allowances, etc.... but not Investments, Capital Gains, Inheritances, etc.... because those things have already been taxed.

So, for example, let's say my weekly income ammounts to $1210. Currently there are all sorts of deductions before taxes, and after taxes I end up with about $750 in my paycheck. Under my system (assuming 7% Federal Tax and 5% State Tax), I'd pay $84.70 to the Feds, $60.50 to the State, have the $60 taken out for Union Dues, Medical, etc... and end up with $1004.80 since I'd have opted out of Medicare and Social Security. If I was stupid enough to opt into those programs it would probably be somewhere around $950 a week. That's a MAJOR difference.

Now, as to how the Fed would get to spend that money.... Real Simple. The CBO should come up with a projected tax income for the next fiscal year. Then reduce it by 10%. That should be the HARD CEILING on Federal Spending for the next fiscal year (INCLUDING ALL DEBT PAYMENTS and EXCLUDING ALL MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS). By Constitutional Amendment the Budget should not be allowed to exceed that number the CBO comes up with.


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2011)

How about the morality of wealth?

What does the bible say about such things?

Good thing I am not a christian


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

This was my favorite quote.  Effing parasites.  Sorry, but any industry that can pay their top executives hundreds of millions of dollars, do not deserve or MERIT tax breaks.  Period.  Also we need to end the billion dollar give-away to Monsanto and Cargill.   

*"Questioned about whether the tax breaks are essential to promote exploration, each executive admitted they are not but said the subsidies are similar to those enjoyed by other industries."*

Overheard on CNN.com: Shrinking Big Oil &#8211; This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

*"Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."*
United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database

Don't you find it interesting that most of the subsidies given go to only 10% of the recipients.  Sounds familiar, doesn't it.


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> This was my favorite quote.  Effing parasites.  Sorry, but any industry that can pay their top executives hundreds of millions of dollars, they do not deserve tax breaks.  Period.  Also we need to end the 87 Billion dollar give-away to Monsanto and Cargill.
> 
> *"Questioned about whether the tax breaks are essential to promote exploration, each executive admitted they are not but said the subsidies are similar to those enjoyed by other industries."*
> 
> ...



I read something a few years ago about how large of a percentage of farm subsidy checks are mailed to NYC.  Lots of farmland there?


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> I read something a few years ago about how large of a percentage of farm subsidy checks are mailed to NYC. Lots of farmland there?



Yep, this is exactly what happens when you allow corporations to buy legislation.


----------



## Metzor (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


Individuals have morals. Government should never be used to bribe societies dregs. Hunger is the worlds best motivator.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What a person accumulates is on them.. their choices.. their actions... and in a free society, whether they are successful or not is none of your fucking business... nor does it entitle you or anyone else to the results or earnings of their success

Equal treatment by government... you and your ilk love to spout it when it benefits you, and you subsequently throw it out the window when doing so benefits you... so no matter how much someone makes, to have equal treatment by government, you don't just allow 50% to carry the burden because of your subjective bullshit idea of 'fairness'

Income is taxed... wealth is not nor should it be... if I choose to stash it or invest it or spend it or shove it up a stripper's ass is of no concern to  you or your entitlement junkie brethren


----------



## Bern80 (May 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



Your brain is truly warped righty. For your brain to write the above and actually believe it takes someone truly delusional. YES, the government does take money from and give it to othes. It's called Social Security you dumb ass just as an example.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Churches should not be exempt from property taxes.  That is another massive redistribution of wealth.
> ...



That is mostly caused by tax credits/exemptions/deductions related to having children.  I already pointed that out.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Churches should not be exempt from property taxes.  That is another massive redistribution of wealth.
> ...



Exempting certain property owners from paying tax redistributes wealth because it shifts their burden of the tax bill to those who aren't exempt.

Say you have 10 property owners and you need to collect 1,000 in property taxes from them.  Assume the properties are equal for the sake of this example.

If all are liable - then each pay $100.  If 3 are churches and pay zero, then each church is $100 richer, and because the other 7 have to now pay the 1,000 alone, their shares are 143 instead of 100, 

so they are each 43 dollars poorer.

That is a redistribution of wealth, period.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 18, 2011)

Wealth is earned, never to be redistributed by government. 
Government redistribution breeds and encourages lazy, undisciplined and uneducated citizens.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And it is wrong... and if those others who simply do not pay still benefit from the system without contribution, or derive entitlements... that too, is a massive redistribution of wealth... all of which is flat out WRONG


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Thank you for proving my point.

Redistribution of wealth refers to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots.
Tax-exempt status for churches doesn't do this in any way shape or form.

To make your point, you've redefined the term to suit your purposes.

You: fail


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> "Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."
> 
> United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database



You know, I can't believe you righties haven't blown a gasket over this number I posted.  Thats BILLIONS of OUR TAX DOLLARS going directly to private corporations who make BILLIONS in profits and pay their top executives hundreds of MILLIONS.  The farmers sure as hell aren't benefitting from the subsidies...


----------



## manifold (May 18, 2011)

manifold said:


> > What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?
> 
> 
> My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.



Allow me to expand

First, subjects like this are great jumping off points for exploratory and open minded discussion of things that at there core, are still merely philosophical opinions.  Without exception, whatever anyone posits on this subject, it is an opinion.  And that opinion in turn, is based on some other opinion.  And so on.  At no point in this discussion is it possible to trace the formation of ones final opinion back to irrefutable fact.  This alone usually sends the more astute partisans into the shadows.  The less astute will boldly challenge the aforementioned truism and disqualify themselves from my further consideration.  But whatcha gonna do? 

Moving on...

My opinion that some amount of wealth redistribution is moral stems directly from my opinion that a peaceful civilization is not possible without it.  As simple as that.  A society without wealth redistribution is a society without taxes, without common government, without common laws.  In short, its anarchy.  As soon as you impose any taxation, you have crossed the line into wealth redistribution whether youre honest enough to accept it or not.  I know that some will try to argue that if the tax is only imposed to pay for things that do not directly identify the beneficiaries (e.g. military, infrastructure and law enforcement), then it doesnt qualify as wealth redistribution.  But of course to make this leap in logic requires one to reason that failure to identify and quantify the distribution of benefits proves that they are shared equally.  This is a logical fallacy, pure and simple.  Furthermore, in my opinion it is far more likely that the benefits are not shared equally, and I question the worldly wisdom of anyone that claims otherwise.

However, just because a peaceful civilization is no possible without some wealth redistribution doesnt mean that society should be rigidly constructed for said redistribution (e.g. Communism).  It is important to understand the double-edged sword that is wealth redistribution.  For all its necessity, it will always wield the potential to destroy economic viability, hamstring innovative progress and in more extreme instances, infringe greatly upon individual liberty.  I say potential because I believe that a material level of redistribution can be supported before said potential becomes a concern.  In short, both too much and too little wealth redistribution, allowed to progress unchecked, will eventually lead to collapse and/or revolt.  Logically this implies the existence of some optimal, perhaps non-stationary level of wealth redistribution that balances these constantly evolving, conflicting needs.

For those of you who are willing to accept this foundational thesis, perhaps an equally interesting discussion can be had, not about morality, but where we currently stand in relation to this theoretical optimum.  If anyone wants to start a thread about that, Ill give this some more thought.  Until then, back to trolling for me.

manifold out


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > "Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."
> >
> > United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database
> 
> ...



You are simply putting a deaf ear BECAUSE it suits your agenda..

many 'conservatives' or 'righties' continually complain about any subsidies or entitlements, no matter the recipient


----------



## rightwinger (May 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> ...



Guess what Bern?

You belong to a society. As part of that society you are expected to contribute. You contribute to Social Security, you get to draw out of it. If not, you get nothing


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > > What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?
> ...


False premise.
Nothing in taxes, common government or common laws necessiates taking from the haves in order to support the have nots.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 18, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



Below is a map of what states receive more money from the goverment and which ones get less than they pay in.  The states in Red are the states who are getting more than they pay in, the states that are Blue get less than they paid in to the government. I see Louisiana is one of the states feeding off the Federal Trough.
I guess Soggy made an error when posting his crying and whining.


----------



## JackDan (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



no. But it is going to happen anyway.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> You are simply putting a deaf ear BECAUSE it suits your agenda..
> 
> many 'conservatives' or 'righties' continually complain about any subsidies or entitlements, no matter the recipient



Sure don't see it happening here.   All I'm seeing is defense of oil companies' unnecessary (admitted by the executives themselves to being unnecessary) tax breaks and blind defense of the MIC extortion we're paying for.  I expected outrage... but you guys scream and moan about helping US Citizens knowing that the largest portion of our citezenry is sliding into poverty since the Great Depression... all because of casino shenanigans played private industry in the first place THAT WE, THE TAX PAYER HAD DUMPED IN OUR LAPS WHILE THEY MADE OUT LIKE BANDITS.  I just find it interesting, that's all.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If you gave most of us the choice NOT to contribute to SS... I would gladly sign off on any documentation you wish so that I will never draw from it

If SS is such a great system and option, then why the fuck is it mandatory?? People would be flocking to voluntarily contribute to it

And in part of a free society... you should not be 'expected' to contribute for the personal responsibilities of others... rather you should have the right to exercise the freedom to choose to do so or not


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > You are simply putting a deaf ear BECAUSE it suits your agenda..
> >
> > many 'conservatives' or 'righties' continually complain about any subsidies or entitlements, no matter the recipient
> 
> ...



Absolutely FALSE.. open your fucking eyes

And your personal circumstances from your efforts, choices, experiences, abilities, etc is on you... not me....


----------



## rightwinger (May 18, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Your elected representatives of our society have decided everyone needs retirement coverage. You don't like it, elect other representatives or join a new society

Do you know how many modern countries in the world do not have retirement coverage for their workers?  Good luck finding one


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


A massive overreach of power in a corrupt system in a supposed free society...

Again... if it were so great... why is it mandatory?? People would be FLOCKING to sign up


----------



## mudwhistle (May 18, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



The legend says only spending above and below one dollar.

It doesn't say what you claim.


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



That is for each dollar of federal taxes that state paid, how much the fed spends on them.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 18, 2011)

facts mean nothing to many on here.

History is not something they like.

they try to change it every time they need a way to pretend their historically failed ideas work.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> facts mean nothing to many on here.


Thus, the irony of your name.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> facts mean nothing to many on here.
> 
> History is not something they like.
> 
> they try to change it every time they need a way to pretend their historically failed ideas work.



Facts... something you do not ever deal with... you habitual liar


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

Yes the progressive tax code is moral.

No it is not moral to freeload.


----------



## Immanuel (May 18, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Redistribution of wealth is immoral.
> ...



What is wrong with it?  Nothing is wrong with a corporation making 10% profits.  The problem I have is in the thought that the government must also subsidize said corporations with billions of dollars on top of that.  That $21 Billion could do a hell of a lot of good spent elsewhere.

Immie


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Yes the progressive tax code is moral.


Please present a sound argument to that effect.


----------



## Claudette (May 18, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



A massive overreach of power?? What an understatment.  

Nowhere in the Constitution, you know, that document which we are supposed to be governer by,  will you find the word Charity.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you see it written that the Govt has the right to take money from one group of people and give it to another. 

Nowhere in the Constitution will you see it written that the Govt, i.e. the taxpayers, are obligated to take care of anyones individual needs. 

Charity is a good thing when its given freely and that ain't the case with entitlements.


----------



## Bern80 (May 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Just grow a pair and admit you lied. Our government does indeed take money from some and give it to others. As Manifold so eloquently noted, once you tax a society you are engaging in wealth redistribution, period.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> Absolutely FALSE.. open your fucking eyes
> 
> And your personal circumstances from your efforts, choices, experiences, abilities, etc is on you... not me....



1.  What is false?  Everything I posted is irrefutable truth.
2.  When have I ever asked you (or the government) for anything?  Well, I did take out a student loan so that I could afford to go to college, but I paid that back W/ 7% interest.


----------



## Bern80 (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Absolutely FALSE.. open your fucking eyes
> >
> > And your personal circumstances from your efforts, choices, experiences, abilities, etc is on you... not me....
> 
> ...



That's always the interesting thing about these debates. When you actually accuse a lefty of receiving redistributed wealth you deny it vehemently. So if you find it so shameful to receive money that was taken by force from someone else why do push so hard for other people to keep receiving what has been taken from others?


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> That's always the interesting thing about these debates. When you actually accuse a lefty of receiving redistributed wealth you deny it vehemently. So if you find it so shameful to receive money that was taken by force from someone else why do push so hard for other people to keep receiving what has been taken from others?



No idea what this grammar-poor paragraph means.  You didn't go to college, did you?  No English 101, I suspect?


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the progressive tax code is moral.
> ...



Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people.

All Western societies implement a form of a progressive tax scale.  The US lags behind most developed nations in this regard.

Tax Progressivity and Income Inequality | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary

Tax Tables / Tax Bracket Rates


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Absolutely FALSE.. open your fucking eyes
> >
> > And your personal circumstances from your efforts, choices, experiences, abilities, etc is on you... not me....
> 
> ...



Your stating it does not make it "truth"....

Fucking idiot

You have stated that 'Reps' or 'Conservatives' act a certain way here and out in the world... this, is NOT the case... and if you would open your fucking hyper-partisan eyes, you would see this


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > "Recipients of Total USDA Subsidies from farms in United States totaled $246,718,000,000 in from 1995-2009."
> >
> > United States Top Recipients 1995-2009 || EWG Farm Subsidy Database
> 
> ...



Case in point where you are flat out WRONG.... conservatives here and other places do speak out against ALL subsidies


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > That's always the interesting thing about these debates. When you actually accuse a lefty of receiving redistributed wealth you deny it vehemently. So if you find it so shameful to receive money that was taken by force from someone else why do push so hard for other people to keep receiving what has been taken from others?
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what this grammar-poor paragraph means.  You didn't go to college, did you?  No English 101, I suspect?



You could try answering the question.  Everybody else understood it.. perhaps it is you that is the cement-head?


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> Your stating it does not make it "truth"....



What the eff are you talking about retard?  What is "it" that you are claiming is false???  

What I stated was that I was surprised that no righties had a negative reaction to the farm subsidy numbers - and none HAVE so far.  Then you go on your typical "It is not my job to take care of you" BS straight out of the GOP "talking points" manual, which, by the way had NOTHING to do with anything I posted.  Geez Louise...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Good, let's keep it this way.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> You could try answering the question. Everybody else understood it.. perhaps it is you that is the cement-head?



What question?  That paragraph makes no sense!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Your stating it does not make it "truth"....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh great... the what is the definition of _*it *_argument...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 18, 2011)

The man asked you this:

_So if you find it so shameful to receive money that was taken by force from someone else why do push so hard for other people to keep receiving what has been taken from others?_

And you responded with this nonsense:

_No idea what this grammar-poor paragraph means. You didn't go to college, did you? No English 101, I suspect? _

Are you fucking high or just illiterate?


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> Oh great... the what is the definition of it argument...



Well, when you adamantly demand that something is false in an argument, it is generally a good idea to know what you are referring to (and anyone making a rebuttal).  Didn't attend debate classes either, did you guys?  God, you righties on this board are so freaking dumb!  No wonder this country is in the state that it is in.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Ah!  The Appeal to Popularity fallacy.
That a number of people think someting it moral does not make it so.
Fail.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 18, 2011)

> You didn't go to college, did you? No English 101, I suspect?



Ok grammar queen... did you really need commas here?

I love these guys.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> All Western societies implement a form of a progressive tax scale.  The US lags behind most developed nations in this regard.



Best be careful Boo, you could shoot your foot off flinging about loaded statements like that...

"The US lags behind in taking wealth from it's citizens, something we really must address..."


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.


Like who?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



My, what a liar you are. You recieve $1.78 for every dollar you pay in federal taxes. You are just another welfare state on the tit provided by the liberal states that recieve less than they pay in so you single wide rednecks can lie and bitch about how much you pay.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tax.jpg


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Oh great... the what is the definition of it argument...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you adamantly demand that something is false in an argument, it is generally a good idea to know what you are referring to (and anyone making a rebuttal).  Didn't attend debate classes either, did you guys.  God, you righties on this board are so freaking dumb!  No wonder this country is in the state that it is in.



And it is quite obvious that the 140+ hours of basket weaving and poli-sci is really paying off for you.. your thoughts are all over the map.  Look you pompous little twit, you deflect, obfuscate and in general avoid defending anything you say in any rational manner.  You my fine boy, are in no position to be calling out anyone for lack of mental acuity.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > All Western societies implement a form of a progressive tax scale.  The US lags behind most developed nations in this regard.
> ...



No, we just lag behind in fairly taxing those that benefit most from the system. Our present tax system punishes those who do the creating and rewards the parasites that live off of the sweat of others.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> > > Oh great... the what is the definition of it argument...
> ...



He's the epitome of the "self appointed know-it-all"


----------



## DiamondDave (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Yes... it does punish the job creators and the investors with a higher tax burden, while others pay zero income taxes at all... and reward those who suck off the government tit while doing nothing (the welfare queens, and lazy)... for once you have stated something correct


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> > > Oh great... the what is the definition of it argument...
> ...



Dumb ass, you just stated that Louisianna gets the hind tit on reciept of federal funds, when in fact you getr $1.78 for every dollar you send in. You are supported by the liberal states. You know, the states where education is considered to be a good thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

Mr. Peepers said:


> What the eff are you talking about retard?  What is "it" that you are claiming is false???
> 
> What I stated was that I was surprised that no righties had a negative reaction to the farm subsidy numbers - and none HAVE so far.



Yawn...

{"We cannot afford to lavish these subsidies on corporate agribusiness," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Paying farmers not to farm doesn't make any sense and neither does giving people money just because they happen to own land where historically there had been farming like direct payments."}

Read more: Taxpayer Calculator: Farm Subsidies - FoxNews.com

The right opposes farm subsidies, which are a hold-over from the Bolshevik policies of FDR. Subsidies were given to farmers NOT to grow food, in order to drive food prices up. The justification being that low food prices were deflationary.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> So if you find it so shameful to receive money that was taken by force from someone else why do push so hard for other people to keep receiving what has been taken from others?



1.  Are you saying that *I* received money forcibly taken from someone else?  When?
2.  What the hell does this even mean?  "why do push so hard for other people to keep receiving what has been taken from others?"  Who am I pushing for to keep receiving (or to receive at all) anything that has been taken from others?  My post was AGAINST corporate welfare, dumbass.  Good lord.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the progressive tax code is moral.
> ...



Because it alleviates the burden of financial need in a moderate manner.  It makes a reasonable requirement of the wealthier that they contribute more to society as a whole.  

Since they are contributing from resources that are above and beyond those that fund one's necessities, they are not being asked contribute more than they can afford.

The progressive income tax fixes in part the fundamental social injustices that are an inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



You dumb fucks sure proved what a genius you had for job creation from 2001 to 2009. Left us with a job growth that did not even keep up with the high school and college graduations. Not only that, you left us in one hell of a economic mess. Damned near had the Second Great Republican Depression. 

Now you want to tell us how to spend money. Kind of like having a pyromaniac guarding an oil refinery.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> Ok grammar queen... did you really need commas here?



Um, yes I did.  Retard.


----------



## Immanuel (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



I'm not certain what makes up those figures but just thinking about it, I would guess this includes SSI and Medicare payments and if that is the case then one reason for the disparity is that all them Northern states do not take care of their aged and send them our way to take care of them.  

Those aged and retired don't pay much in taxes anymore but they do receive.  So, maybe if you would actually take care of your own...?!    Come to think of it, they clog up our streets to and make driving a literal nightmare.  So we deserve the extra taxes.  

Immie


----------



## Mr. Peepers (May 18, 2011)

> And it is quite obvious that the 140+ hours of basket weaving and poli-sci is really paying off for you.. *your thoughts are all over the map*. Look you pompous little twit, you deflect, obfuscate and in general avoid defending anything you say in any rational manner.



MY thoughts are all over the map?  Wow.  My posts have dealt w/one topic- corporate welfare.  No reading comprehension either I see.  For shame...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> No, we just lag behind in fairly taxing those that benefit most from the system.



Ah yes, "fair."

"What you earn is mine, but the lavish pension and absurd wage I get from my government job is mine."



> Our present tax system punishes those who do the creating and rewards the parasites that live off of the sweat of others.



ROFL

Yes, by NOT taking enough of the wealth created by others to give to government "workers."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Since they are contributing from resources that are above and beyond those that fund one's necessities, they are not being asked contribute more than they can afford.



The original was more pithy; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Since they are contributing from resources that are above and beyond those that fund one's necessities, they are not being asked contribute more than they can afford.
> ...



Thanks for reminding us how shallow your depth is.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 18, 2011)

Stealing is not moral...

Redistribution of wealth constitutes stealing... I could care less how others philosophize with the process, but logically its theft.

A person without a car could steal one and use the same philosophy those that the proponents of redistribution of wealth use.

"well he needs a car"

So whats the difference between stealing a car or the government stealing money from one and giving it to another to buy a car?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Thanks for reminding us how shallow your depth is.



And he goes for the non sequitur... Proving once again the enduring truth of the saw; "The lower the IQ, the further to the left!"


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Redistribution of wealth constitutes stealing... I could care less how others philosophize with the process, but logically its theft.


If you want to go live in the woods away from society and not use any of the stuff government provides I'm fine with you keeping all the fruits of your labor.


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2011)

I paid a morel tax last week.  6% to be exact.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Disagree.

Morality has two principal meanings:

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics. 

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


That just means you refuse to admit the fallacy of your argument.
If you choose to refuse to understand how you're wrong, there's nothing anyone can do to help you.
:shrug:


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > All Western societies implement a form of a progressive tax scale.  The US lags behind most developed nations in this regard.
> ...



Not to worry, I'm only concerned about pseudo-cons who take partial statements out of context shooting my feet.

But are you trying to say that either one of those sentences are not true?


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



So by not including the definition I posted regarding cultural morality and why I disagreee in your response, does that means you no long want to continue a conversation and simply declare me to be wrong.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Not to worry, I'm only concerned about pseudo-cons who take partial statements out of context shooting my feet.
> 
> But are you trying to say that either one of those sentences are not true?



I'm saying that your phraseology is absurd.

"Laos lags behind North Korea in the number of citizens dying of starvation." 

This was once considered the "land of opportunity" precisely because those who created and achieved were afforded the right to keep what they made.  BUT that was BEFORE the era where 40% pull their paycheck from some form of government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


I asked for a sound argument.
Yours is based on a fallacy and thus, cannot be sound.
At this point, your only meaningful recourse is to start over.
Feel free to do so.


----------



## Too Tall (May 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The average unemployment rate over the 8 years that Bush was in office was 5.3%.  That was with some major disruptions called Katrina and the attack on 911.  The average unemployment rate for 2009 and 2010 was 9.3% and is still at 9%.  How is that hopee changee shit working for you?


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 18, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Redistribution of wealth constitutes stealing... I could care less how others philosophize with the process, but logically its theft.
> ...



Nice, typical liberal bullshit argument. 

When non-libs point to social welfare and condemn it, the libs start talking about logical public works, safety etc and shit..

How about quit giving people free welfare money to vote democrat? 

Does that satisfy you???

Giving people free money to sit on their ass and do nothing but cry is bullshit...

People shouldn't be allowed to live on welfare their whole lives..

So yes, I have a fucking problem with tax dollars supporting people financially...

Its funny how the lazy always support the democrats and communism, yet under real communism the lazy are brained or purged.... Thats some ironic shit..


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> How about quit giving people free welfare money to vote democrat?



No one is doing that retard.



> Giving people free money to sit on their ass and do nothing but cry is bullshit...


Or that.



> People shouldn't be allowed to live on welfare their whole lives..


 Very few do, they're usually people who are disabled.


> So yes, I have a fucking problem with tax dollars supporting people financially...


 Boo fucking hoo, sorry you don't like food stamps for poor families, not my problem you're an a-hole, deal with it yourself.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You're entitled to your opinion, not facts.  Simply ignore what doesn't agree with you.


----------



## rightwinger (May 18, 2011)

Too Tall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Unemployment was great until Bush looked on like a deer in the headlights while we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.   Why would anyone hooey change back to that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Yes...  and your -opinion- is that a progressive tax rate is moral.
An opinion, based on a fallacy, rather than fact, based on a sound argument.


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone. 

It was his belief that all natural resources are inherently owned equally by everyone, and since all items produced are derived from natural resources, everyone deserves payment for their resources.

It was Thomas Paine's belief that the wealthy should be taxed and that this should be distributed to the poor.

Is that a good enough answer for justification of wealth redistribution or do you hold yourself to be more knowledgeable of the fundamentals of American philosophy than Thomas Paine?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.



I'd love to see the quoted text from Paine.

I don't recall reading that in "Age of Reason."


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.
> ...



From Wikipedia:

"He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income."

Research it yourself.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 18, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.
> 
> It was his belief that all natural resources are inherently owned equally by everyone, and since all items produced are derived from natural resources, everyone deserves payment for their resources.
> 
> ...




That's pretty close to pure socialism, dude.   Doesn't justify anything to me.


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Steelplate (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes...  and your -opinion- is that a progressive tax rate is moral.
> An opinion, based on a fallacy, rather than fact, based on a sound argument.



Prove that it's a fallacy. Why is it a fallacy. I want Proof... not opinion!

See how ridiculous this is?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Stealing is not moral...
> 
> Redistribution of wealth constitutes stealing... I could care less how others philosophize with the process, but logically its theft.
> 
> ...



Taxation by constitutionally valid legislation is only stealing if you believe that laws cannot make anything legal.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 18, 2011)

Why is a flat tax moral?  Or fair?

A flat tax requires the wealthy to pay more than the less wealthy.

10% on a million dollars is a helluva lot more than 10% on 30,000 dollars.


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > There is actually a very good argument raised many years ago, by a guy named Thomas Paine (ever hear of him?), that calls for a 'guaranteed minimum income' for everyone.
> ...



Americans tend to consider the beliefs and philosophies of the founding fathers as having a bit more gravitas, than your opinion of what is or is not justified.

Have you ever considered that you have been brainwashed into the belief system of European conservatives and all but forgotten American political philosophy?

Just your reference to 'socialism' as evidence of an idea being unjustifiable shows that you are indeed brainwashed.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Actually I'm basing my opinion on this which, contrary to your opinion, is not a fallacy.

Morality has two principal meanings:

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics. 

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics. 

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets see if you ignore it again.

Would that be moral?


----------



## manifold (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Nice, 'high road' pwnage!


----------



## Wiseacre (May 18, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:
> 
> Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Aren't you disincentivizing people to work if you give everybody a paycheck whether they've earned it or not?   You don't think there would be a lot of anger from the workers against the freeloaders?   How does a person develop any self worth if they do not produce or earn anything?    Or gain the respect of others?   

Which leads me back to my orifinal question inthe OP:  is it moral to give people a free ride, or instead try to provide opportunities for the to succeed or fail on their own?   Is it moral to subsidize those who won't even try?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Aren't you disincentivizing people to work if you give everybody a paycheck whether they've earned it or not?



People that don't work don't get paychecks.


----------



## Steelplate (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why is a flat tax moral?  Or fair?
> 
> A flat tax requires the wealthy to pay more than the less wealthy.
> 
> 10% on a million dollars is a helluva lot more than 10% on 30,000 dollars.



yes... but when you are looking at life needs. $3,000 means a hell of a lot more to someone making 30K than 100k Does to someone making 1M.

That 3K could pay rent for 6 months for someone or help put food on the table for their kids. that $100k means... well, when you still have $900k coming in every year? Not a whole hell of a lot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Why is a flat tax moral?  Or fair?



Because all are treated equally. You of the left are so very found of the "some are more equal than others" philosophy.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:
> ...



That was not the original question in your OP, at least not what I answered.  Generally I don't believe it is moral to give an able bodied person a free ride. (unless it's for manifold's avatar, I will give her a free ride anytime:


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Americans tend to consider the beliefs and philosophies of the founding fathers as having a bit more gravitas, than your opinion of what is or is not justified.



I enjoy Paine and find much of his pamphlets intriguing. Paine was not one of the founding fathers, however.



> Just your reference to 'socialism' as evidence of an idea being unjustifiable shows that you are indeed brainwashed.



Socialism is an untenable idea. One which fails each time it is employed.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> People that don't work don't get paychecks.



Not much of a guaranteed minimum income, then...


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > People that don't work don't get paychecks.
> ...



I'd call a check given by government not in exchange for work a benefit check, not a pay check.

A guaranteed minimum income would actually eliminate the need for scores upon scores of separate government programs. If everyone got a check for, say, 10k a year from the government - that would eliminate the need for lots of people to get government backed student loans, food stamps, housing assistance, disability insurance,  and numerous grants. (for example, the NEA could be eliminated, as any serious artist should be able to scrape by on 10k + whatever art he sells). We could also throw out a lot of the IRS code. Social Security could be seriously downsized at least. So much beurocracy could be eliminated.

And it hardly removes work incentive. If I make 10k a year not working, I'll make MORE than 10k a year if I work.


----------



## xsited1 (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
> 
> ...



That's called theft which is immoral.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 18, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...




Yeah, me too.


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another pertintent wikipedia article:
> ...



No it would not disincentivize anyone. The vast majority of people choose to be productive.

"How does a person develop any self worth if they do not produce or earn anything?"

Very good question! One which begs yet other questions in response:

Do all the world's millionaires and multi-millionaires who have not in any way earned their money (which is the vast majority), have any true sense of self-worth? 

Should the working people that are so grossly underpaid be satisfied simply by their sense of "self-worth", gained by their productivity? So they perhaps pity all those miilionaires for lack of self-worth?

"is it moral to give people a free ride, or instead try to provide opportunities for the to succeed or fail on their own?   Is it moral to subsidize those who won't even try?"

First, if your believe in the equality of mankind and in the principal of ownership, Thomas Paine's concept is that all people own all natural resources equally. So redistributing the welath in order to pay people back for use of their resources is NOT giving them a free ride. It's repecting their ownership.

Second, our economic system does not provide opportunities for everyone, and certainly not equally for anyone. Otherwise we wouldn't have millions of Americans suffering from unemployment. Their was more equality of opportunity in the Soviet Union than there ever has been in America. (I know that that's hard to swallow, but it is the truth, like it or not).

In America, a rich man's son has infinitely more opportunity than a poor man's son. No doubt about it. 

Given the economic system, the only true opportunity offered the vast majority of the poor is the opportunity to be a slave. Yes, a well treated slave, but still a slave.


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Americans tend to consider the beliefs and philosophies of the founding fathers as having a bit more gravitas, than your opinion of what is or is not justified.
> ...



That depends on how you define the term 'socialism'.

On one hand, Stalinism was a failure - recognized as such even in the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, the United States, The United Kingdom, France, Germany and every other industrialized country has been socialist in some sense of the word since long before any of us were born. Would you consider them failures?

What has been a gross failure, since the beginning of time is pure capitalist soceities - free liberaterian.

The gross failure of Yeltsin era Russia being the latest and greatest failure.

The semi-socialistic policies of Putin, which have established Russia as a major economic power is a testament to the success of non-communist, semi-socialism.

Oh, and of course the semi-socialist policies of the United States since FDR have also kinda PROVEN the success of socialism.


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
> ...



So you'd agree that underpaying workers is immoral?


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Americans tend to consider the beliefs and philosophies of the founding fathers as having a bit more gravitas, than your opinion of what is or is not justified.
> ...


----------



## Richard-H (May 18, 2011)

Have a good night all! I have to take my son to dinner.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 18, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Why is a flat tax moral?  Or fair?
> ...



While I agree in a flat tax for everybody-the right isn't exactly for that either. They like to tax oil companies at a much lower rate for capital investments. Neither the left or the right (at least in congress), is truly interested in a flat tax across the board.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 18, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I believe in a consumption tax but a straight up flat tax doesn't make any fucking sense.

I like both notions but both would have to be tweaked to be realistic.

For example: you cant charge 20% on manufacturing components...

I've always entertained and in agree with the idea but it needs to be tweaked.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I don't think that a capital investment tax shouldn't be the same rate as income tax for example, or other taxes. But I think that all taxes of the same stature should be the same rate. I don't think it's right to have oil companies pay a lower tax rate than a corporation from a different industry, for the same type of tax. That's what I was trying to get at.

Kind of like in whatever state you're in (or areas of state-depending on your state), everybody pays the same sales tax for the same item.


----------



## JackDan (May 19, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Just out of curiousity, what is your argument against flat tax?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 19, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> You are kidding? Right?
> 
> You do realize that Thomas Paine was the preeminent political philosopher of the American revolution? That he's called the "Father of the American Revolution"?



Be that as it may, Paine was not part of the organizing nor governing mechanism of the early confederation nor of the republic. Paine urged revolt in Common Sense, but did not directly involve himself in the formation of the nation.



> I would think that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would strongly disagree with you.



I doubt it. Remember that Paine took off to France to promote another Revolution in 1789, and remained there for a decade or two. 

Look, I'm not trying to diminish Paine, I enjoy most of what he wrote. But he was a different breed than Washington, et al. Paine was not a builder of nations, but an advocate of revolution. Once the revolt was done, Paine got bored and moved on.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 19, 2011)

BlindBoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Sigh...



> In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, *but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people *(such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.


This is appeal to popularity.  Fallacy.



> In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think.


Please show how a progressive tax is morally right, in a normative sense.

Oh wait - you already said that you're NOT making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, ala the normative sense, but based on what most people think.

So, again, you're left with the fallacy, upon which you have based your opinion, rather than fact, based on a sound argument.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Restating what you said, when what you said clearly illustrates that you argue a fallacy, is, well, self-pwnage.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 19, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Paying someone a lower wage is not theft... nor truly immoral

And if some worker feels underpaid... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere??

Confiscation thru taxation for redistribution purposes is not even close to being the same as lower wages


----------



## manifold (May 19, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Confiscation thru taxation for redistribution purposes is not even close to being the same as lower wages



Economically speaking, they are exactly the same.




DiamondDave said:


> if some worker feels underpaid... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere?



If some person feels overtaxed... do they not have the choice to leave and work elsewhere?


----------



## mascale (May 19, 2011)

The 1st Christians are described in KJV Acts 2:  As having no concept of not redistributing wealth among all the people.

"42 They devoted themselves to the apostles&#8217; teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

The Pacific Northewest indigenous tribes of the United States were also accustomed to a community of wealth in common, the greater status ascribed to actual greater givers.

In Contrast, the Party of Abraham Lincoln is known to take what everyone else hast, and leave it all to rot, or make it go away, or just to die like dogs in vomit.  Tens of Millions used to hast the Schedule M, Make Work Pay Tax Credit.  Even now, the Republicans took that away, and made it vanish.

What was Schedule M, of U. S. Internal Revenue forms:  Actually all about, absolutely no one is incllined to ask, or not?  It represented the first ever attempt in history, of a properly computed, Cost-of-Living Adjustment on a national basis.  The Moslems and Socialists had created national cost-of-living adjustments, on a national basis, first.  Those, however, were computed using a fixed percentage raise.  Them what hast more, got more.  Them what hast squat, got squat.

The "Calabasis Miracle" of Countrywide Financial had antecedants all wordwide.  The Soviet Bloc eventually collapsed.  The Shah eventually was overthrown.  The Iraqis would eventually go into exile, fleeing the invaders from the USA and the phony "Coalition."  Afghanistan would live like squat just like it always had, eventually except for the more prosperous, cash crop growers.  There was USA-styled "Liberation" to help out in Afghanistan!  The Opiates that the Party of Lincoln, intended for peoples worldwide, were in play.  

The original indexation of the Personal Exemptions and Standard Dedection, in the 1986 U. S. federal Income Tax reform, would mainly throw 45% of filers off the federal income tax rolls:  Completely.  Nothing would be owed.

Kabul would eventually have more than 200 gyms.  Governor Schvartzenegger would succumb to Advanced Narcissistic Psychosis, discussing, "What Family(?)" at any given time!  Nothing would be allowed to come between the Governor(?) . . .well!

The Governor and the invasions of Americans, including in the Genocide of the White People, 1861-1865, is more about the morality of keeping all the wealth:  And about taking wealth away!

Real Christians are clearly not of the Party of Abraham Lincoln!  Property-Sharing was not altogether a value of the Confederacy, in fact.

A lot of the Christians, early on, were probably Jewish, in fact(?).  At least they lived there, and tried to give it all away, or something--like millions now believe!

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred."
(White Eyes Understand Their Christ As Follows, from the 19th Century Potlatch ban:  "Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the "Potlatch" or the Indian dance known as the "Tamanawas" is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of confinement; and, any Indian or other person who encourages, either directly or indirectly, an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival or dance, or to celebrate the same, or who shall assist in the celebration of same is guilty of a like offence, and shall be liable to the same punishment."   Hmmmm!)


----------



## DiamondDave (May 19, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Confiscation thru taxation for redistribution purposes is not even close to being the same as lower wages
> ...



No.. it is not... not even close to being the same.... and... you do not have the freedom to remain a citizen (not the same as an employee, even before your corny ass says it) when going to another country....


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 19, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



Capital investments wouldn't be taxed..

Actually my biggest concern with a flat tax would be in manufacturing. How can one build a product while paying 20% taxes on components and  still have an affordable product??

You're only talking skyrocketing product costs..

Manufacturers would need some sort of "relief."

I like the idea, it just needs some tweaking...


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 19, 2011)

JackDan said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



The taxes on manufacturing components...

You want to pay 300.00 for a DVD player made in the US?


----------



## Wiseacre (May 19, 2011)

I thought a flat tax was basically an income tax, with no deductions, loopholes, exemptions, or tax breaks.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 19, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> JackDan said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Manufacturers of DVD players make $1 an hour. 
It is US WAGES AND *BENEFITS* that push the manufacturing of a simple product like a DVD player to 3rd world countries.
Taxes are high here but they have nothing to do with DVD players or most manufacturing being taken from thIS country compared to wages and *BENEFITS*.


----------



## Richard-H (May 19, 2011)

Has it every occured to any conservatives that money does not grow on trees?

That there should be a concept of 'reasonable profit'?

That all profits above 'reasonable profit' mean that somewhere somebody is being ripped off?

If I invest a dollar and make a million in return, doesn't it seem like something is wrong? Doesn't it stand that somewhere somebody would be being ripped off?

Investment does not create wealth. Investment controls resources. Hard work creates wealth and those that create the wealth deserve a fair share of that wealth.

Investment & ownership deserve some reasonable profit, but not undue profit.

The real problem is that instead of government ensuring that workers get a fair share of the returns, which would incentivize workers, government taxes and redistributes to those that often times do not deserve it.

Perhaps government monitoring & regulation of salaries, wages or profit sharing would be better than redistribution thru taxation.


----------



## lizzie (May 19, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?


 
There is no morality in theft whether someone goes into their neighbor's home and steals from them, or they have the government do it for them. Theft is theft.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 19, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > JackDan said:
> ...



I said in the US... Union labor costs a hell of a lot more than 1 dollar..

Tariff that shit from China now an you will see some economic problems if we cant work things out here..


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 19, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > JackDan said:
> ...



At the same time - what we view as a "1 dollar" is actually 10 to workers in other countries.

Hell man you can eat a full meal at the best restaurant in Japan for 5 bucks in many nations money (converted to us)..

50 American dollars is a fortune to some...


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 20, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Has it every occured to any conservatives that money does not grow on trees?
> 
> That there should be a concept of 'reasonable profit'?
> 
> ...



Who determines what a "reasonable profit" is?
You or the person that has worked 70 hour weeks for decades, put up their entire life savings to start the business, drove old cars to survive for those decades and made sacrifices in time with their family?
You, the government OR ME, THE PERSON THAT EARNED IT?
Fuck the government and anyone that demands that I receive less of what I have earned.
What is "undue profit"? As an owner of 3 businesses that word does not exist.
Ever heard of a business LOSING $$$? 
How about undue losses law? Where YOU have to take $$$ out of YOUR pocket and give it to me because of undue LOSSES. Perhaps government should monitor your life to make sure you do not make too much $$$, have too many things, make sure the car you drive is "reasonable", make sure the big screen you buy is "reasonable", make sure the house yoy buy is "reasonable", and make sure you live a "reasonable" life.
I bet your computer is not reasonable. You have too much.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



China is the largest growing market for goods in the world.
How do we sell OUR PRODUCTS there is we tarrif here?
Guess what they do? The same thing and at this time that would hurt our economy 10 times greater than them. 
Tarrifs are always bad.


----------



## manifold (May 20, 2011)

It always cracks me up when self-professed libertarians advocate import tariffs, seemingly oblivious to the glaring, hypocritical contradiction that lies therein.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 20, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I think people should be taxed on what they earn. If you are rich, you pay more in taxes. But taxes should be used to keep the country running. Building the infrastructure, defense, Civil Services and support jobs. But what it should not be used for is to support a welfare class.  This country wasn't founded with a welfare class. There is nothing in the constitution that defines a welfare class. In this case re distribution of wealth is wrong.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 20, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Has it every occured to any conservatives that money does not grow on trees?
> 
> That there should be a concept of 'reasonable profit'?
> 
> ...



Investment is not hard work? Research is not hard work? Analyzing risk and future trends is not hard work?

Sorry asshole... cleaning port-a-potties is not the only hard work out there...

You don't deserve any SUBJECTIVE 'fair share'... you deserve what you can earn, negotiate for yourself, advance yourself to, etc... and the freedom it takes to do as you will, succeed or fail

Fucking collectivists


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 20, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



Oh it sure does. Yes there is a legal tax structure but where the line is crossed is the use of the taxes collected. Taxes should be used for services, maintenance of the infrastructure, defense and such. It was not meant to support a welfare class. It was never the intent of the founders to tax to support a welfare state. Its a concept that was only introduced in the last 80 years and it has even changed drastically in the last 80 years. It has gone from government sponsored work programs to government provided hand outs.  

You are 100% wrong. It is redistribution of wealth through a tax system.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 20, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Has it every occured to any conservatives that money does not grow on trees?
> 
> That there should be a concept of 'reasonable profit'?



Thanks Vlad, we'll take that under advisement....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> I said in the US... Union labor costs a hell of a lot more than 1 dollar..
> 
> Tariff that shit from China now an you will see some economic problems if we cant work things out here..



No you won't, because you completely misunderstand what it is that drives production off shore.

In costing, there are three basic elements. Material, Labor and Overhead.

For simplicity sake let's say that we have an overhead rate of 300%, so the basic cost breakdown is;

Material = 60%
Labor = 10%
Overhead = 30%

Say the total cost is $100, the labor cost is $10. So the proposition that offshoring to China could be based on labor is that the labor in China, PLUS all shipping costs are less than $10 for the part.

This is virtually NEVER the case.  Only on something that was made from cheap materials and is labor intensive - the opposite of electronics, would this be viable economically.

So what IS it that drives manufacturing off-shore? Taxes, Regulation and punitive litigation. Manufacturing goes to the East to escape the EPA and the IRS, not to avoid the minimum wage.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Hell man you can eat a full meal at the best restaurant in Japan for 5 bucks in many nations money (converted to us)..
> 
> 50 American dollars is a fortune to some...



Are you kidding me? Japan?

No dude, food is about 10 to 15 times more expensive in Japan. EVERYTHING is expensive in Japan. (At least Tokyo)

Japan is not China.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 20, 2011)

Japan is about Hong Kong expensive... been to both places... thank god I was on the corporate credit card and not my own dime


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...  and your -opinion- is that a progressive tax rate is moral.
> ...


Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## American Legacy (May 20, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


Whatever the merits of a generous charity in society, those merits end when individuals do not have the autonomy to decide for themselves how much to give, when to give it, whom to give it to and when to stop giving.  When someone else assumes that autonomy from you and reallocates your wealth at their discretion rather than yours, it is robbery plain and simple.  It matters not how the money is spent, when it's taken without your consent, it is theft.  Government has no money except that which it takes from others.  Consent is implied by virtue of our having representative government that is popularly elected on a routine basis.  If enough Americans disagree with how the money is spent (i.e. redistributed) then they are free to voice their opinion at the polls.  The two great challenges to this are firstly, that most individual voters do not see (though they often feel) the impact of bad government spending policies because of the low visibility of most of the tax burden and secondly, because we have a record number of Americans who are net recipients of the government's largesse who can outvote those of us who produce that wealth in the first place.  Such a system is unsupportable in the same way that our federal entitlement programs are unsupportable.  At some point there are too many "takers" and not enough "givers" to keep the system propped up and that's when it collapses.  At that point, however, I fear the "takers" will be so used to their "free" goodies, it will create mass social chaos and result in an authoritarian regime usurping power in this country.  What a nightmare.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> I said in the US... Union labor costs a hell of a lot more than 1 dollar..
> 
> Tariff that shit from China now an you will see some economic problems if we cant work things out here..



I'm told you claim to be a libertarian.  Is that correct?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 20, 2011)

manifold said:


> It always cracks me up when self-professed libertarians advocate import tariffs, seemingly oblivious to the glaring, hypocritical contradiction that lies therein.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?



If they advocate import tariffs, they aren't libertarians.  It would be the same as claiming to be a Christian if you discounted the premise that Christ was the son of God.


----------



## manifold (May 20, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > It always cracks me up when self-professed libertarians advocate import tariffs, seemingly oblivious to the glaring, hypocritical contradiction that lies therein.
> ...



Tell that to editec.  He labors under the belief that anybody can call themselves whatever they want and believe whatever they want regardless of any gaping academic contradictions between the two.


----------



## mascale (May 20, 2011)

Shown in the previous mascale post, the early Christians were basically best at wealth redistribution.  The early real Christians would to what Jesus taught.  They would take their hast, sell it, and spread it around so that everyone had enough.  

Mostly, of course, they were Jews:  And Civilization woud eventually come to express its opinion about a Christ like that.  In Europe, even now:  There really are none.  The concept seems to have widespread support, even in the Middle East, even now.

Jesus had further presented two arithmetic examples of down-home economics.  In Matthew 20::1-16, the manner of the pay at the end of the day is basically re-distributive, like in the Schedule M, which the Party of Abraham Lincoln, characteristically took away.  It was Christian, and certainly no person of the Party of Abraham Lincoln can accept either Christian behavior, (what is shown in Acts 2), or Jesus teachings, shown in Matthew 20::1-16.

Matthew 20::1-16, puts arithmetic to work on behalf of all the believers in the field.  Those relatively well-off--working only the one hour--were equally treated like those who had clearly been desperate, and needed to be included right away.

The Party of Abraham Lincoln is generally opposed to equal treatment, basically opining that only the slaves in the South should be free, and even in 1863.  When freed they should only even labor for a reasonable wage--if allowed.

And so Jesus also tells the story in Matthew 25::14-30.  If the raise methodology is arithmetic-bound, engaging even everyone in a currency program, arithmetic-based, then a fixed percentage raise provides more to the rich.  The poor might as well go and toss it in the dirt.  They eventually get cast into the outer darkness of foreclosure.

There is on the one hand, the equal-treatment arithmetic of Matthew 20, creating the behavior of early Jew believers.  Europe would eventually deal with that in all certainty.  The Party of Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand:  Completely disregards any semblance of pretense at equal treatment.

It is thought at Party of Abraham Lincoln, that no paying customers in any of the stores will make the economy thrive.

Even in the current U. S. House of Representatives:  The TeaBerserkers intend $2.0 tril. in spending cuts--with nothing offered to replace those cuts.

In the tradition of the Party of Abraham Lincoln:  The current House Republicans, only want to take all the spending away.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws come to Lands of Many Nations--Hoping to become like Jews of Europe, of the last century--vanished for the most part, even now!)


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 20, 2011)

mascale said:


> Shown in the previous mascale post, the early Christians were basically best at wealth redistribution.  The early real Christians would to what Jesus taught.  They would take their hast, sell it, and spread it around so that everyone had enough.
> 
> Mostly, of course, they were Jews:  And Civilization woud eventually come to express its opinion about a Christ like that.  In Europe, even now:  There really are none.  The concept seems to have widespread support, even in the Middle East, even now.
> 
> ...



So...   we should continue/expand the welfare state because Jesus would have us do so?


----------



## editec (May 20, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


 
I'm down with that.

What's your take on paying people LESS than than the value of what they produce and giving it to people who don't produce anything, but who merely OWN the means of production?

Let me guess, you're down with that, right?

'So it's agreed then?

the *Capitalist* model of society work pretty damned well.

I'm glad we could reach this happy conclusion.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 20, 2011)

editec said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...




First, capitalism is by far the greatest economic system devised by man, an is entirely responsible for the steep rise in the standard of living for every society that has tried it without too much gov't intervention.   No other system even comes close.

Now as far as workers' wages goes, it comes down to supply and demand.   If there are 100 people waiting to take your job, it's kinda hard to ask for a raise.   It is therefore on you to do something to increase your value.   I have no moral dilemna with that, and if you don't upgrade so to speak, then you should get used to life on the bottom of the financial pile.

Which leads us to the owners.   Dude, without the incentive to create wealth it all goes down the tubes.   I do think that gov't has a role to play in ensuring a safe workplace and no unfair business practices or discrimination or abuses are not permitted.   If an owner of an enterprise can develop some product or service that others will pay handsomely for, well that's called progress.   There is no moral issue with getting rich, it is not a sin.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Hell man you can eat a full meal at the best restaurant in Japan for 5 bucks in many nations money (converted to us)..
> ...



I was speaking more about the rural areas of Japan.

Of course any major city will be expensive anywhere you go.


----------



## manifold (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...




Backpedal fail.


----------



## mascale (May 20, 2011)

When Lincoln famously freed the slaves, (1) he freed the slaves in the South, and (2) he did not guarantee any alternative to providing, for their well-being.

With the current crop of Lincoln-Berserkers, even on TV--and the internet and twitter--Clamoring to free the shopkeepers of any paying customers in their stores:  Then anyone sane is better inclined to propose a John Wilkes Booth Memorial!

After the Genocide of White People, 1861-1865--then even Europe would be able to find a convincing role model for a version of "Equal Treatment Under Law," like the computing in Matt. 25::14-30.  The one group of Europeans were to be treated as a Master Race, and the other groups of Europeans were to go to the dust as cremains.

With no paying customers, in the stores:  Then the proprietor groups, and any of their labor, have only the welfare recourse.  No one will expand the credit market.   Then central government, has nothing to spend.  Incomes no longer in-come(?).

That is welfare, without a state.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, not Stirred!"
(Many squaws come to Lands of Many Nations:  Find new peace and love, with one-armed bandits!)


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



You have a problem with our standard of living or something??


Besides, like communism, or any dictated economy is any better?? hell when they have economic problems they just start murdering people and purging them - that or they just invade other countries for resources(see Stalin).


----------



## MikeK (May 20, 2011)

The problem is not redistribution via charitable programs such as food stamps.  These are good things which show us to be socially advanced and highly civilized.  The problem is poorly managed bureaucracies which can be fixed by the Congress -- but the Congress remains inert because the voting public remains ignorant and apathetic.  So when we hear about things such as the loophole which enables a lottery winner to continue receiving food stamps, where does the blame ultimately lie?  

Regardless of how well organized and managed a given program may be there always will be the familiar "ten percent," those who no matter what is done to minimize waste and fraud will manage to abuse the system.  These are low-level sociopaths, the bottom-feeders who inhabit any society and are impossible to eliminate by any civilized means.  

So as long as the freeloaders remain an occasional rather than common presence we shouldn't allow them to harden us against all who have legitimate need for the aid programs American society makes available to its less fortunate.


----------



## smokin_kat (May 20, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?




Please read anything from Thomas Jefferson.  If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, incentivize it. The government is incentivizing. Not working.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Wow... you guys are going at it.

Let me ask a few simple questions.... who benefits MOST from our country is it the welfare bum making...what?.... $600 or so/month from Welfare? Or is it the conglomerate, who buys legislation that makes them billions upon billions of dollars every year... of which, millions go to their CEO's and Corporate attorneys as salary?

I am upper middle class and I have no... READ... zero problem with the taxes my wife and I pay.

Funny that some of you should mention public employees.... how many of you help pay for your own wages? Public employees do.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wow... you guys are going at it.
> 
> Let me ask a few simple questions.... who benefits MOST from our country is it the welfare bum making...what?.... $600 or so/month from Welfare? Or is it the conglomerate, who buys legislation that makes them billions upon billions of dollars every year... of which, millions go to their CEO's and Corporate attorneys as salary?
> 
> ...



You're spot on here. People act as if public employees don't pay taxes like everybody else.

As a side note a lot of people forget that what other people do effects them as well. Let's say on your street there's a few foreclosures. Guess what happens to the value of your home, and thus your total assets? We don't live in economic bubbles.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Absolutely James... Good point about the foreclosures. And I love how the Conservative Spin machine paints all those who lost their homes as people who "bought too much house". There are hundreds of thousands of these foreclosures that had absolutely nothing to do with people overextending themselves and everything to do with these mortgage companies reselling the mortgages over and over and over again until things fell apart.


----------



## Richard-H (May 20, 2011)

A moment of truth!

I think ya'all need to stop and reflect on this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmcf4Y3lGM]YouTube - &#x202a;Real Estate Downfall&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Really Richard? How many of the foreclosed homes fall into that category.... It's real good political spin and propaganda... but do some damned research that doesn't involve the Heritage Foundation or some other right wing propaganda machine and get back to me.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 20, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> You're spot on here. People act as if public employees don't pay taxes like everybody else.



Public employees don't pay taxes.  They perform a book keeping transaction where they deduct an amount determined by formula from the tax money they receive.



JamesInFlorida said:


> As a side note a lot of people forget that what other people do effects them as well. Let's say on your street there's a few foreclosures. Guess what happens to the value of your home, and thus your total assets? We don't live in economic bubbles.



What thieves and robbers do "affects" you as  well.  I guess that's OK in your book.  Right?


----------



## manifold (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Absolutely James... Good point about the foreclosures. And I love how the Conservative Spin machine paints all those who lost their homes as people who "bought too much house". *There are hundreds of thousands of these foreclosures that had* absolutely nothing to do with people overextending themselves and *everything to do with these mortgage companies reselling the mortgages over and over and over again until things fell apart.*



The part I bolded is 100% horsefeathers, no offense.  A homeowner's ability, or lack thereof, to make their own mortgage payments has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how many times that mortgage is bought and sold in secondary markets.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.


----------



## manifold (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.



I'm too tired to bother trying to educate you right now.

But you're talking out of your ass.  No offense.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

OK... so you think it was all a bunch of house flippers too, right?


----------



## lizzie (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> *Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. *Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.


 
Ummm- yeah. Those buyers signed the contract when they bought their home with a variable rate mortgage. If they weren't able to figure that out, then they were being stupid.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

So stupidity... especially when Salesmen try to spin it so it makes good sense... is worthy of kicking families out of their homes while the people that had already made a fortune on this crazy ponzi scheme get bailed out by US taxpayers.

You guys are all heart.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Business owners aren't stupid - they know when the government spends trillions it wont be the crack head in the projects covering it.... They will respond by laying off workers to save themselves.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Business owners aren't stupid - they know when the government spends trillions it wont be the crack head in the projects covering it.... They will respond by laying off workers to save themselves.




OK... WTF does this have to do with the Mortgage problem?

You think that Billionaires are "Worthy" of the bailout and Homeowners who have seen their once affordable homes become a fucking Albatross around their necks aren't?

As far as the layoffs... If they wouldn't have played Casino with other people's money, this wouldn't have happened. That's why there needs to be regulation so that it never happens again. Maybe the next time... we should hold the fuckers responsible and take their private assets and let THEM live in the projects with the crackheads.


----------



## tallmike (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate-
Are you talking about adjustable rate mortgages or the fact that mortgages are sold from one mortgage company to another?

The ARM is a contract that the homeowner agreed to.  The sales tactics on them were pretty stiff because of how much the sales folks were able to make by getting everyone into a mortgage but that does not excuse the folks who signed the contracts thinking they were going to come out on top in the end.  It was a gamble and they lost, some other folks won by getting out sooner.  

Most of us heard the sales pitch and said "Well that just sounds stupid, what do I do in year 5 when my rate jumps?  I think I'll just take a smaller home with a fixed mortgage"

As for mortgage companies selling the contract to another company, that does not have any effect on the mortgagee other than where they mail their payment.  The originator of the loan got their payment from the closing fees, the buying company hopes to make their money back on interest payments.  They don't add to the mortgage balance or adjust the interest in a sale.


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > *Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. *Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.
> ...



they were sold a bill of goods....

they were told that when the loan kicked in to the adjustable stage, they could refinance with a conventional mortgage and for a while they did get the refinancing....but when the time came on the later groups of subprime adj mortgages, the banks were not lending out for too many conventional mortgages for these people....they could not get the refinancing in to a conventional mortgage as they were told they could....it was all downhill from there....prices stopped going up on home values with the foreclosures, less money avail to loan, more and more foreclosures....bubble bust, Pyramid scheme by the banks came to its end, homeowners screwed, banks bailed out by homeowner's and our taxes.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> they were sold a bill of goods....
> 
> they were told that when the loan kicked in to the adjustable stage, they could refinance with a conventional mortgage and for a while they did get the refinancing....but when the time came on the later groups of subprime adj mortgages, the banks were not lending out for too many conventional mortgages for these people....they could not get the refinancing in to a conventional mortgage as they were told they could....it was all downhill from there....prices stopped going up on home values with the foreclosures, less money avail to loan, more and more foreclosures....bubble bust, Pyramid scheme by the banks came to its end, homeowners screwed, banks bailed out by homeowner's and our taxes.



Thank you Care4all... That's what I was trying to say and failing miserably at.


----------



## Rodack (May 20, 2011)

Stealing wealth, labor and wages from people is immoral

so is Democrat baby killing, illegally Bombing Libyans, forcing homo sex on children in school and basically everything liberal.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Let me add something else... yes... My wife and I have a fixed rate mortgage. But they offer the variable rate too, don't they?

A lot of people think that they can trust the banks and were suckered into those variable rates. Don't forget, mortgage brokers are salesmen too. So just because there are people out there that are savvy, doesn't mean the rest of them DESERVE to be screwed.


----------



## Rodack (May 20, 2011)

Did you know that liberals are currently forcing banks to loan out Adjustable rate mortgages to their ghetto voting blocks again?


LOL


Democrats are not bright


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Stealing wealth, labor and wages from people is immoral
> 
> so is Democrat baby killing, illegally Bombing Libyans, forcing homo sex on children in school and basically everything liberal.



what's immoral with the party that you support rodack, anything you see ever immoral with them...or do you turn a blind eye to it?


----------



## lizzie (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> So stupidity... especially when Salesmen try to spin it so it makes good sense... is worthy of kicking families out of their homes while the people that had already made a fortune on this crazy ponzi scheme get bailed out by US taxpayers.
> 
> You guys are all heart.


 
Make no mistake- I did not support the bailout, TARP, or the economic stimulus, but yes, people who sign contracts without reading the fine print are neglecting their own responsibility as buyers. It doesn't matter how good it looks, what a slick salesman tells you, or how much you think you need it. When you sign a contract for a variable rate mortgage, you're screwing yourself.


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Did you know that liberals are currently forcing banks to loan out Adjustable rate mortgages to their ghetto voting blocks again?
> 
> 
> LOL
> ...



LINK please.


----------



## tallmike (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> they were sold a bill of goods....
> 
> they were told that when the loan kicked in to the adjustable stage, they could refinance with a conventional mortgage and for a while they did get the refinancing....but when the time came on the later groups of subprime adj mortgages, the banks were not lending out for too many conventional mortgages for these people....they could not get the refinancing in to a conventional mortgage as they were told they could....it was all downhill from there....prices stopped going up on home values with the foreclosures, less money avail to loan, more and more foreclosures....bubble bust, Pyramid scheme by the banks came to its end, homeowners screwed, banks bailed out by homeowner's and our taxes.



They were sold a lottery ticket, and they jumped at it eagerly.  They thought they were going to be set for life with the increased value of their home over the course of the first few years.  They bought into a chance to make lots of money, they ignored the chance of losing lots of money.  

Did the banks do things wrong?  Absolutely, but so did the buyers.  Lets not let any of them off the hook.  

We should have let the banks and the homeowners live with the contracts they signed...


----------



## Rodack (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Rodack said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that liberals are currently forcing banks to loan out Adjustable rate mortgages to their ghetto voting blocks again?
> ...






Lazy liberal


No handouts here


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Stealing wealth, labor and wages from people is immoral
> 
> so is Democrat baby killing, illegally Bombing Libyans, forcing homo sex on children in school and basically everything liberal.



Wow... baby killing? I've never seen infants on pikes or anything like that... Forcing Homo Sex on Children? OHHHH... you're talking about Catholic Priests!!!! Well.. I think that most of our Catholics and their clergy are upstanding people... but there are a few bad apples out there.

If you're talking about Abortion... well, I am don't approve of abortion myself and I would hope my daughter would not choose such an option if she became pregnant. But you know what? It's her soul, isn't it? Who are you to dictate another's morality?

As far as "Forcing Homo sex on Children in School"... If you can make a case for Actually forcing Homo sex in schools(like literally having sex with school kids), I think you should contact the authorities.. because I do believe that in all 50 states, sex with minors(homo OR hetero) is quite illegal.

I'll take the "everything liberal" part as the ridiculous pigshit that it is, thank you very much.


----------



## lizzie (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> *A lot of people think that they can trust the banks and were suckered into those variable rates.* Don't forget, mortgage brokers are salesmen too. So just because there are people out there that are savvy, doesn't mean the rest of them DESERVE to be screwed.


 
Then those people are suckers. It's not my (or anyone else's) fault that people can't control their impulses enough to pay attention to what they are doing.


----------



## Rodack (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Rodack said:
> 
> 
> > Stealing wealth, labor and wages from people is immoral
> ...








I never said liberals were bright


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Business owners aren't stupid - they know when the government spends trillions it wont be the crack head in the projects covering it.... They will respond by laying off workers to save themselves.
> ...



Well if you don't have a job you cant pay your mortgage...

Another problem is that fools bought homes they couldn't afford ONLY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FORCED CREDITORS TO LEND TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE...


----------



## lizzie (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> *they were sold a bill of goods....*
> 
> they were told that when the loan kicked in to the adjustable stage, they could refinance with a conventional mortgage and for a while they did get the refinancing....but when the time came on the later groups of subprime adj mortgages, the banks were not lending out for too many conventional mortgages for these people....they could not get the refinancing in to a conventional mortgage as they were told they could....it was all downhill from there....prices stopped going up on home values with the foreclosures, less money avail to loan, more and more foreclosures....bubble bust, Pyramid scheme by the banks came to its end, homeowners screwed, banks bailed out by homeowner's and our taxes.


 
They *bought* the bill of goods.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

tallmike said:


> They were sold a lottery ticket, and they jumped at it eagerly.  They thought they were going to be set for life with the increased value of their home over the course of the first few years.  They bought into a chance to make lots of money, they ignored the chance of losing lots of money.
> 
> Did the banks do things wrong?  Absolutely, but so did the buyers.  Lets not let any of them off the hook.
> 
> We should have let the banks and the homeowners live with the contracts they signed...



No one thinks they will be "set for life". that's ridiculous. They just thought that they wouldn't get the rules changed on them midstream and have no way out. That is profiteering and some of us think they did it on purpose... they KNEW they'd get the bailout AND the properties... which they will hold onto until they can profit ONCE AGAIN on them.

Yes... both sides fucked up... but only one has to pay.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Rodack said:
> ...



That's your best attempt at a comeback? You don't want the "Gubmint" to legislate your "Freedom" away when it comes to your taxes... but you want to legislate other people's morality? What am I missing?


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > So stupidity... especially when Salesmen try to spin it so it makes good sense... is worthy of kicking families out of their homes while the people that had already made a fortune on this crazy ponzi scheme get bailed out by US taxpayers.
> ...



The fucking government forced the lending in the first place.

Lenders were strict before Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson claimed lending bias against the poor was pure racism.

Creditors were forced to lend to anyone - credit was turned into a right via the community reinvestment act..

Thats the fucking problem... Thats the root cause...


----------



## Rodack (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Rodack said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...





Sir, I am not interested if you take it in the ass from other democrats. I just do not want your pervertions forced into the school system


Go figure


Freedom to keep my wages

Freedom to tell you that you are a filthy pervert.



America rules


----------



## tallmike (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> The fucking government forced the lending in the first place.
> 
> Lenders were strict before Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson claimed lending bias against the poor was pure racism.
> 
> ...



"The guy in charge 10 years ago did it"    "This is the fault of the (democrats/republicans)!"  

So?  Blaming it on politicians who are no longer in power really does not do anything.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Sir, I am not interested if you take it in the ass from other democrats. I just do not want your pervertions forced into the school system
> 
> 
> Go figure
> ...



wow... nice intelligent response... but, alas... it's what I can expect these days.


----------



## Rodack (May 20, 2011)

Freedom often confuses Democrats


I am circumsized without SF Democrat approval and have lightbulbs that cause hurricanes btw.....


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Simply not true.

90% of the loans foreclosed are NOT CRA area loans....they were loans to people not protected or covered by the Community Reinvestment Act

the banks CHOSE to lower their own standards to keep their ponzi scheme going....  had NOTHING to do with CRA.


----------



## Steelplate (May 20, 2011)

Freedom? We'll see how free you are if you idiots get your way and your kids are starving because they abolished the minimum wage and alll those wages above that drop accordingly.... and then the bank comes and takes your house...and then your company decides that they'd be better off moving their operations to China because they'll work for fish heads and that's even better than paying you a US wage(even with minimum wage gone), and of course you can't fight for anything better because they took your collective bargaining rights away too...

Then maybe your kid gets sick and now not only is he malnourished, but you can't afford to take him to the doctor because of the "it's your own responsibility" Health Care Plan that we went to.

So you decide that desperate times call for desperate measures and you break out on of your 35 guns you own and rob someone.... but you're not a REAL criminal, so you get caught. You go to prison(which we never seem to run out of money for), your kid dies due to a treatable illness, and the wealthy Elite sit and blame you for being such a scumbag.

Congratulations. You're free.


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > *they were sold a bill of goods....*
> ...



Lot's of people get fooled in to Ponzi schemes....it happens all the time, especially with senior citizens or the uneducated....but guess what?  They are the victims....


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

tallmike said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > The fucking government forced the lending in the first place.
> ...



I'm merely seeking truth...

If it makes you feel any better the republicans signed the fucking thing.

That has to be one of the more fucked up pieces of legislation the republicans signed that pisses me off.

The democrats pretty much said "if you don't support this bill you are all racists" so they sign it and several years later TARP is born...

I'm just stating the facts here..

I have zero problem blaming republicans when they're guilty.... Especially the RINO's (republican in name only) that passed that community reinvestment act bullshit...


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (May 20, 2011)

...helped along with Pub deregulation and lack of enforcement...10 years of "Deregulation!!" and "Corporations know best!" gets you this EVERY TIME!! Ay caramba...Keating Five, S+L Crisis, huge deficits, fraud, bubbles, and a great recession. The myth of Pub business sense is a farce...


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Rodack said:
> ...



Then i guess i will just say, what you said is simply NOT TRUE.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > lizzie said:
> ...



But you dont understand...

CRA loans are 90% home loans, however people used their home ownership status to get CREDIT CARDS and other loans...

Understand now???

You get a CRA loan for a home, you then take that home and use it as some kind of collateral or proof that you can pay back a loan and then rack up 60-70k in debt...


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (May 20, 2011)

Back to loaning money to WORTHY poor again. NOT to unemployed and overleveraged Pub yuppies again...


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > So stupidity... especially when Salesmen try to spin it so it makes good sense... is worthy of kicking families out of their homes while the people that had already made a fortune on this crazy ponzi scheme get bailed out by US taxpayers.
> ...



it did not matter if they read the fine print....teven if they knew the fine print inside out....THEY WERE ASSURED and told by everyone involved, from the mortgage brokers to the banks to the real estate agents, that when their loans came to become adjustable, they could refinance in to a conventional mortgage...  it was a scam and the scam worked for several years, luring more and more people in to the pyramid game....it worked well....until it didn't.

and this is not for all the people who took out the loans and the second mortgages on their homes....clearly there were many in the middle class who had to have understood the risk...at least you would think they would have......but I ask, how could THEY know when every executive in every bank and mortgage company and insurance company ALL THOUGHT that the scheme would go on forever and prices would continue to rise forever....they said so themselves in hearings....I know, how absurd is that?

so, the uneducated and the educated seemed to have been fooled.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Back to loaning money to WORTHY poor again. NOT to unemployed and overleveraged Pub yuppies again...



Who in their right mind would borrow money anyways?

No one needs a late model car, no one needs a boat, no one needs to have the newest cell phone or Ipod..

I can understand using credit for necessities but for junk??

Most people live beyond their means.


----------



## xsited1 (May 20, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



  Just saw this.  

Thanks for the laugh.  I'm drinking a warm glass of milk before bed and I almost laughed it through my nose.


----------



## Immanuel (May 20, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.



Except that if I am not mistaken the formula for interest rate changes is laid out in the mortgage documents.  A company that purchases a note is bound by those documents and cannot later change the formula.

Also, as a side note, it is not only ARM's that are being foreclosed upon.  My mortgage is fixed rate.  I absolutely refused to enter into an ARM.  I have now been unemployed for nearly 16 months.  I have not missed a payment yet, but I am beginning to think that if things don't turn around by the end of the year, I'm not positive I can keep this up.  

Immie


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

hey mr nick, how do you think the grahm/ leach/ biley bill got it's name?

Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act.

So this was Republican legislation with 3 republicans, congressmen and senator, creating and sponsoring the bill....

wonder WHY you didn't mention such and just tried to nail clinton for the deregulation?

hmmmmm....


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Hmmm... Interest rates go up on a variable rate mortgage... to the point where they can't afford their payments anymore. Apparently someone has not been paying attention. After all... every time one company sells the mortgage, they have to get their cut in.
> ...



Happy Birthday Immie!


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> hey mr nick, how do you think the grahm/ leach/ biley bill got it's name?
> 
> Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the GrammLeachBliley Act.
> 
> ...



The hell I didn't..

I bash the fuck out of the republicans all the time for passing that bullshit...


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

If you must know I'm a fiscal conservative and a  social libertarian....

I only vote against progressive communists, it not like I support the republican party. I support the Tea Party but the republican party is just a consolation prize....

Hell I had to painfully vote for Mark Kirk (the RINO tyrant) because Alexi Giannoulias is Obamas pet...

Normally I would have voted against the republican Kirk...

Its difficult being a libertarian...


----------



## Care4all (May 20, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Nick....listen to me, pretty please....

90% of the mortgages that have been foreclosed on in this crisis, ARE NOT loans to people that lived in the areas that were covered under the Community Reinvestment Act protection....so this means that the government DID NOT force those 90% that were foreclosed upon, in to those shady loans....it means that the Banks and Mortgage companies, created these risky loans, all by themselves.  they did this for no purpose other than wanting and needing to sell more mortgages than the previous year in order to keep the prices climbing on homes.

their Ponzi scheme could not work, unless prices continued to go up on homes....so they decided to lower their standards on their loans, so that they could reach a wider market, and then when those lower standards did not capture enough people to keep their scheme going they lowered their loan standards even more.....the banks did this, to themselves Nick....and greed is what drove their extremely poor business decisions.


Care


----------



## MikeK (May 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Ummm- yeah. Those buyers signed the contract when they bought their home with a variable rate mortgage. If they weren't able to figure that out, then they were being stupid.


Whether or not the signee of an adjustable rate mortgage is stupid or is simply naive and unaware of the potential trap he or she is stepping into, do you think such financial shenanigans should be permitted by law?  Aside from the patent immorality of such devious contracts the kind of economic chaos they have caused is evidence their overall effect is damaging to society.  The terms of a mortgage contract should be fixed and predictable throughout its duration.


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Gerrr..

Do you not understand that if you own a home you can get credit and buy all kinds of rims and shit for your 89' Caprice... Yeah you can get blastin sound systems and nice paint jobs too.

You know why?

Because if you own a home your credit limit goes from 500.00 to 5,000 if not more.. BECAUSE YOU OWN A FUCKING HOUSE...

What don't you understand about that????

Owning a house is a lot different than renting one...

Do you really believe renters get 5,000 dollar limits? no they get 500 dollar limits at 18%


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 20, 2011)

What the fuck do people not understand about the ownership of assets and credit??

Ever hear of a lien???


----------



## Steelplate (May 21, 2011)

Mr Nick.... I want you to prove your blanket ignorant assertions... that these people were out "buying rims" and all the rest of the shit.

The simple truth is... you were either told this bullshit or simply believe it on your own accord. Either way, It's not proven, so stop acting like your opinion is fact.


----------



## editec (May 21, 2011)

manifold said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely James... Good point about the foreclosures. And I love how the Conservative Spin machine paints all those who lost their homes as people who "bought too much house". *There are hundreds of thousands of these foreclosures that had* absolutely nothing to do with people overextending themselves and *everything to do with these mortgage companies reselling the mortgages over and over and over again until things fell apart.*
> ...


 

No, I'm afraid you're  minfinformed  on that point, Mani.

Without that secondary mortgage system banks would have had to hold the paper.  The mortgages they were holding would have not be capitalized, and therefore they wouldn't have been able to lend out more money.

Hence on the macro scale, there'd have been less money available for people to buy homes.

Less money in that RE market would have resulted in lower home prices overall.

Since banks knew they could pass off the debts to bondholders, they invented more and more dubious mortgages like NINJA loans.

As these loans qualifed more people, people who really were not qualified to repay those mortgages, they created an artifical demand.

Had banks STUCK to the 20% down 30 year fixed mortgages, median housing prices would have stayed roughly in line with the meadian income ratios that existed post WWII.

In that case median housing prices would have stayed at roughtly 1-2 years median family incomes.

The median price of a home would have been roughly $100,000.

Instead the median price of homes in the USA climbed to over $200,000.

The contraction in pricing you see now is the market correcting to the more appropriate pricing that would have existed if but for that secondary mortgage market.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Wow... you guys are going at it.
> ...



Well I do have a problem with the taxes I pay because the majority of those taxes are transfer taxes.
Transfer from my bank account into another citizen's account.
And that is not what government should be. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare consume almost 60% of the entire budget.
Explain to me how any corporation forces me at the point of a gun to give them $$$.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

editec said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Where is the fact that the market WAS OVER BUILT in your analysis?
The fact that there are and were far more houses on the market than demand BEFORE  the collapse also played a major part in this and the pricing.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2011)

If you give business incentives to create jobs in the economy and they end up just keeping the money...

Is it moral to continue giving them the money?


----------



## sparky (May 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...




Editec is talkin' manipulation, far and away more than simple supply/demand Gadawg

for your perusal, the perps are being outed

well after the damage done, and $$$ made, Unfortunatly>


This investigation has the potential to be a Mother of All Nightmares situation for the banks for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the decision to go after the securitization process is a total prosecutorial bullseye. This is the ugly heart of the wide-scale fraud scheme of the bubble era. Again, the business model during this time was a giant bait-and-switch scam. Sleazy lenders like Countrywide and New Century first created huge masses of bad loans, committing every conceivable kind of fraud to get people into loans (from doctoring income statements with white-out to phonying FICO scores to engineering fake appraisals). They then moved the bad loans quickly to the big banks, which pooled them and chopped them up (this is the securitization process), sprinkled hocus-pocus math on them, and them sold them to suckers around the world as AAA-rated securities.

A New Wall Street Investigation: Is the Hammer Finally Coming Down? | Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy


----------



## sparky (May 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> If you give business incentives to create jobs in the economy and they end up just keeping the money...
> 
> Is it moral to continue giving them the money?



well, don't we know how that works out?>


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> If you give business incentives to create jobs in the economy and they end up just keeping the money...
> 
> Is it moral to continue giving them the money?



Where is it my responsibility to create jobs in the economy?
If elected officials give $$ to businesses in incentives then vote out that crowd and vote in those that give no incentives to business.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

sparky said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Manipulation is not being downplayed in any argument I make but to single it out as the only and primary factor is not valid.
Personal responsibility of buyers and the market demand played a large part. 
No one forced anyone to buy a home anywhere that they could not afford.


----------



## Care4all (May 21, 2011)

Mr.Nick said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



no, it's YOU Nick that just doesn't get it.

Buying a home does not give you MORE spendable credit....not if your mortgage is taking up a good deal of your monthly income....a mortgage could make it more difficult to buy a car and get new credit cards, if you are mortgage strapped.

Yes, after you have paid your mortgage for a few years, and some equity has been built in to your house where your house is now worth more than the loan you had originally taken out to buy it. you can take out that equity and borrow on it.

And yes this was a problem  this past decade BECAUSE we were in a Bubble.... a Bubble driven by the "easy Money" the banks loaned out and they loaned out this "easy Money" down to the homeless or unemployed man towards the end of their ponzi scheme because the only way to keep the prices going up on homes was to sell more mortgages....sell more homes.  they got their easy money to sell to us for free or near free from our lovely Fed.

sooooo, because home prices were (artificially) rising leaps and bounds, the banks were able to then sell the community home equity loans, and second mortgages and they advertised with billboards and radio ads and tv ads and newspaper ads directed towards homeowners to take out home equity or second mortgages to buy all their coveted goodies..when homes started to slow down in their sales and there were no more homeless that they could sell 1st mortgages to, the banks pushed the second and home equity loans....

as long as home prices kept going up, everybody was happy....

Humpty dumpty came falling down when some of those people that were sold an adjustable mortgage could not get refinanced in to a conventional fixed rate mortgage and when the economy began to slow and people began losing their jobs....then losing their homes, then more homes on the market, slowed the home market, then this caused more layoffs in the construction industry and the mortgage loan industry, then more homes were not being sold and so on and so forth....the Bubble busted.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Well said and that happened. The banks fucked themselves no doubt. 
However, I was given a 250K additional line of credit in 2008. I never drew a penny on it.
Why?
Discipline and personal responsibility. I knew maybe I could not pay for it.
No one forced anyone to buy any home or borrow any $$ they could not afford.


----------



## manifold (May 21, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> So stupidity... especially when Salesmen try to spin it so it makes good sense... is worthy of kicking families out of their homes while the people that had already made a fortune on this crazy ponzi scheme get bailed out by US taxpayers.
> 
> You guys are all heart.



I'm not saying that at all.  And I think the banks that made those loans bear more of the blame, since they should have known better.  Just like the bank (and real estate agent) that tried to talk my wife and I into paying over 50% more for a home than what we calculated we could afford.  If we borrowed up to what we were approved for, we wouldn't have two nickels left over to rub together.  That said, what I'm trying to get you to understand is that securitizing mortgage loans in the secondary market does not have anything to do with the terms of a borrower's original loan, nor the borrower's ability to pay it down.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> If you give business incentives to create jobs in the economy and they end up just keeping the money...
> 
> Is it moral to continue giving them the money?



Who is giving businesses money?


----------



## editec (May 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
It became overbuilt precisely because the builders realized that the demand was there.

It was NOT overbuilt and THEN the banks changed their policies.

And FWIW, the banks started creating NINJA loans waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the late 80's.

I know THAT for sure because I happened to be a mortgage broker in Connecticut_ when that happened._


----------



## editec (May 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
That's true.

Nobody _with a lick of sense_ denies that fact.

But then too, it was the BANKSTERS who_ had to_ made the loans, not the people getting them.

The people getting those dubious loans are NOT finance PROFESSIONALS.


----------



## Care4all (May 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



We refinanced our home in 2002 to an adjustable rate/balloon mortgage for about 4% points lower than our original fixed morgage....it ballooned in 7 years or automatically converted to an adjustable rate mortgage....we knew we wanted to move in 5 years, so we were not concerned with the 7 year balloon.....when I had applied for the new mortgage, they kept trying to get me to take out more money than the balance on the original mortgage, but we said, no way, Jose! and only refinanced the balance on the mortgage and reduced our monthly mortgage payment by near $400 a month via the lower interest rate.  4 years later we sold our home, made a profit, moved to maine and bought our home here....with the cash and we have no mortgage now.

we, like you did not buy in to the offers from the many banks that tried to give us money to buy gadgets with....we own our cars outright as well....we owe no one, anything.....


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If you give business incentives to create jobs in the economy and they end up just keeping the money...
> ...



I think he means, "let businesses keep the money they have earned."



then they "just end up keeping the money."

I assume rightwinger imagines there's a huge matress that every business has under which they suff dollar bills: Such is the gross ignorance of the socialist.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 21, 2011)

Samson said:


> I think he means, "let businesses keep the money they have earned."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, no, he actually didn't mean that.  Libs think cutting your taxes is giving you money.  In their view your net income is a gift from the government.  I just wanted RightWinger to admit it.


----------



## Care4all (May 21, 2011)

if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money.    Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money.    Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.



No, you aren't giving them money.  That's like saying if a thief steals $1000 from all your neighbors but only steals $500 from you, then he has given you $500.

Not taking your money is not giving you money.


----------



## Care4all (May 21, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money.    Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.
> ...



if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> if you are NOT "giving them more money" to use, via giving them a tax break, then why bother giving them a tax break?



You aren't giving them money.  Not taking money is not the same as giving money.  I can think of a lot of reasons why I wouldn't want the government to take my money.  However, I don't put some Orwellian label on it and call it something it isn't so I can make it sound sinister.


----------



## Samson (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money.    Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.


.

Is your point that....

You got 6 Pack of Mike's Hard Limonade for your B-day.


----------



## manifold (May 21, 2011)

editec said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



I don't agree with your 'macro' argument, but I will concede that it's at least reasonably deduced.  But my original point is still correct.  The terms of one's mortgage loan, and in turn their ability to pay for it, remain unaffected by that loan subsequently being bought and sold in secondary markets.  That's a simple, logical, legal and unassailable fact.


----------



## Rodack (May 21, 2011)

Where ever there is a Democrat in control, there is brutual punishing poverty

See Obamanomics for food Stamp references and debt totals


----------



## boedicca (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> if you give some sector a tax break and you do not give all the other sectors of tax collection an equal tax break, then you ARE GIVING that "business" as an example, money.    Money that other tax payers still have to pay out of their income....and you are putting more of the tax burden on to these other sectors of the tax base with the higher deficits being accumilated due to giving SOME tax breaks.




And this is why we should simplify the tax code and get rid of loopholes, favors, punishments, social engineering, etc for everyone.


----------



## Rodack (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> Rodack said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...





Democrats would die in the streets ( see Katrina for reference) if they didnt have other people to sponge off of in life

See:   "A Renewed Crackdown on Redlining" - BusinessWeek


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 21, 2011)

Care4all said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



We're all the victims becasue we are the ones footing the bailout. To big to fail means we have to pay to keep them alive. With nothing in return to show for it.


----------



## Political Junky (May 21, 2011)

"Too Big to Fail" is a new HBO film, should be good.


----------



## rdean (May 21, 2011)

Why is wealth redistribution something that the right wing thinks is going to happen?

It's already happened.


----------



## Political Junky (May 21, 2011)

Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.


----------



## TheBrain (May 21, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.



the top 1% of earners in this country earn about 19% of the income but pay nearly 37% of the income tax in this country, so what the fuck are you babbling about?

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes &mdash; The American Magazine



Are you really okay with around 40% of Americans paying NO income tax?


----------



## rdean (May 22, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
> ...



And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation.  It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high.  Are these the "earners"?  They are legally fucking the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal.  Seems to be working.  The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".


----------



## TheBrain (May 22, 2011)

rdean said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



That is completely irrelevant to this discussion Dean. Do you deny the facts as presented? Why can't you answer the questions. Why are you okay with 40% of Americans not paying ANY income tax? Why do you think that the top 1% of earners in this country paying twice the percentage of taxes as they earn in income is not enough? Stop deflecting and answer the questions.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 22, 2011)

rdean said:


> And many of those people make that money from the stock market through speculation.  It's why our food prices are spiraling and our gas is too high.  Are these the "earners"?  They are legally fucking the country good and using that money to buy right wing politicians to make sure it stays legal.  Seems to be working.  The Republican base sees that as a "good thing".



buying stock doesn't increase the price of anything.  In fact, it probably reduces prices by providing capital to companies so they can expand production.  It's also doesn't meet the definition of "speculation."

All you've proven is that your ideas are based on total ignorance of economics.


----------



## snjmom (May 22, 2011)

> buying stock doesn't increase the price of anything. In fact, it probably reduces prices by providing capital to companies so they can expand production. It's also doesn't meet the definition of "speculation."
> 
> All you've proven is that your ideas are based on total ignorance of economics.



Manipulating markets through stock purchases intending to reap profits from the wholesale destruction of markets doesn't expand production. 

The decreased demand because the people that spend 100% of their income surviving are paying the tax burden formerly paid by the people that have enough money individually to distort markets through their decisions causes a spiral of contraction.

Too much money controlled by two few individuals creates market El Ninos. Concentrated wealth is always bad for a market. Like Dolly said, you have to spread it for it to do any good.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 22, 2011)

rdean said:


> TheBrain said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Food and fuel are sold on the commodities markets, not the stock market.

When you can't get the basic facts straight, why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 22, 2011)

TheBrain said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Middle class conservatives love giving it all to the top 1%.
> ...


You're talking to someone who believes the tax code is a means through which to exact social justice.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 22, 2011)

Care4all said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


So they can keep more of they money they make.

There is a fundamental - and glaringly obvious - difference between giving someone money and not takimg money from them.


----------



## Care4all (May 22, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



is it okay to not take tax money from all those people that the rightwing bitch and moan about....the 40% of americans that pay no income tax?

Why do your compadres on the right bitch, whine and cry about the people in the usa,  that are allowed to keep their own money and not pay income tax?  they act as if these people not paying income taxes are "stealing from them:" because they do not pay income tax?

Seems to me, if you are one of those who supports the idea that those people not paying any income tax due to tax breaks for their income level, are getting away with murder and cheating somehow....then You would Think, that they would support the position of not giving a business a special tax break either....  

I don't get any of this 2 faced-ness?

I am not saying this is your position M-14, just saying it has been the vocal position of quite a few on this board from the rightwing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 22, 2011)

Care4all said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


If anyone pays taxes, then everyone should pay taxes.
What's that have to do with what I said?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 22, 2011)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/165504-limit-what-foodstamps-are-able-to-buy.html


----------



## Londoner (May 22, 2011)

The rightwing voter has been lied to again.

Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization). 

Here is how it works. First, you stop enforcing the Sherman Act & anti-trust laws... then you flood the country with cheap Mexican labor... then you free capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. All these things have the effect of redistributing wealth upward.

(But you give none of these protections to labor, which must compete with Taiwanese workers who make $2 a day)

The current distribution system is rigged in favor of capital. It is rigged in favor of people who can afford to buy politicians. 

If a Mexican lawyer came into California and tried to practice law illegally, he would get nowhere. He would go to jail. Same thing with a Mexican doctor. If a Mexican laborer slipped across the border, however, he would find work instantly. Wealthy professions are protected from competition, whereas the jobs of the poor are not. This is a distributive act which protects the wealthy from competition. 

Why don't we hear about how the distribution system is rigged in favor of capital and the wealthy? -because the poor can't afford to buy the doctrinal system and pump out propaganda. 

The redistribution doesn't stop there. Big business lobbies Washington for monopoly control over health insurance, communications, energy, pharmaceuticals, and fill-in-the-industry. The merge and consolidate and eliminate the kinds of competition that would force them to lower prices. They capture regulators and pay to have anti-trust laws weakened. (What do you think lobbying is for?)

All of this stuff redistributes wealth upward. 

Surely the rightwing voter understands that the distribution system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the people wealthy enough to buy government. 

(You people can't be _this_ naive. The OP is repeating stuff he has never studied in a rigorous university context)

(wow, just wow)


----------



## Wiseacre (May 22, 2011)

Londoner said:


> The rightwing voter has been lied to again.
> 
> Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).
> 
> ...




Actually there might be some truth in what you say, but you've got the major issue wrong.   Wealth is not redistributed upward, it is created at all levels but primarily at the top cuz the rich guys have the most to invest.    The wads of money a rich guy makes does not come at the expense of a bunch of poor people, when Bill gates makes a billion dollars a year or whatever, it's not like a hundred million or so other people lost that money, it's not zero sum.


----------



## georgephillip (May 23, 2011)

Londoner said:


> The rightwing voter has been lied to again.
> 
> Wealth distribution starts when you protect the owners of business from competition, but not the workers (see globalization).
> 
> ...


*Dean Baker could not have said it any better.*

*"Political debates in the United States* are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living. 

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. 

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, *and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.
*
"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect. 

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)." 

The Conservative Nanny State


----------



## georgephillip (May 23, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > The rightwing voter has been lied to again.
> ...


*Do you believe money is a commodity?*

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.  

"What&#8217;s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there&#8217;s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and *can only be possessed by one person OR another*."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that&#8217;s &#8220;Robin Hood&#8221; backwards!) | Phil


----------



## editec (May 23, 2011)

Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.

We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.

But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.


----------



## georgephillip (May 23, 2011)

Socialize cost.
Privatize profit.
What ALL governments have done for thousands of years.


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 23, 2011)

editec said:


> Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> 
> We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.
> 
> But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.



The redistribution of wealth is a new dynamic. Taxes were always taken to run administration and services of the country. Floating a welfare nation is a new development.


----------



## manifold (May 23, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> ...



And is your objection to said floating borne of concern that it's economically unsustainable or because it violates some subjective standard of righteousness?


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 23, 2011)

manifold said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


My objection is that it creates a large pocket of weakness in the country, is an economic drain on resources that could be better spent and was never the original intent of the taxation system.   I have no problem of government programs that spur the economy by providing temporary jobs like FDR did.  But people worked for that money and provided services that built America. It was no free ride, which is what it has become.


----------



## manifold (May 23, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...



I'm not sure upon what evidence you base your opinion that I bolded.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## Wiseacre (May 23, 2011)

georgephillip said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...




The notion that money is a commodity is nonsense unless you have a fixed amount of currency tied to the gold standard or something similar.  In fact money is a tool used in exchange, a substitute for something else of value.   It changes all the time, relative to whatever someone thinks it's worth compared to something else.

   The Fed creates more of it all the time, we've had some 600 billion pumped into the economy in just the last 6 months or so.   We also have in most years a sizeable increase in GDP, which means more wealth.   Rich people get most of it cuz they're the ones who have the most money invested, more risk means more reward.   And then there's asset appreciation, like the value of your house or your business going up over time.   Nobody else got hurt cuz your house went up in value over a 10 year period, you got wealthier but not at anyone else's expense.   Could be financial or intellectual assets too, all sorts of ways for your wealth to go up without costing anyone else a dime.


----------



## boedicca (May 23, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > CountofTuscany said:
> ...





My objection is related and two-fold:

1.  Pools of other people's money create moral hazards for those who have access to and control of them.

2.  Having the government in the business of wealth distribution destroys healthy values of work, saving, and self-reliance.

It's not a coincidence that the more government tries "to help", that the number of people who require help continues to out pace population growth.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 23, 2011)

snjmom said:


> Manipulating markets through stock purchases intending to reap profits from the wholesale destruction of markets doesn't expand production.



Then it's a good thing that never happens.  No one who buys stock wants to destroy the market.



snjmom said:


> The decreased demand because the people that spend 100% of their income surviving are paying the tax burden formerly paid by the people that have enough money individually to distort markets through their decisions causes a spiral of contraction.



No one has enough money to "distort markets."  Furthermore, why would they want to?  When people invest in stocks they want to make money.



snjmom said:


> Too much money controlled by two few individuals creates market El Ninos. Concentrated wealth is always bad for a market. Like Dolly said, you have to spread it for it to do any good.



Really?  You have some empirical evidence to support this claim?  How much money is too much?  When the rich invest their money in the stock market, they are spreading it out, dipstick.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> 
> We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.
> 
> But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.


Ths is only true if you self-servingly redefine "redistribution of wealth".


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> ...



In my opinion, editec is right and you are wrong.  No offense.

You can find a more detailed articulation of my opinion here if you care:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-5.html#post3653738


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Simple. What percent of people recieving subsidized living work for it?  How many of these people are on it for life?


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


That's not the point. The OP is asking if individual earners should have their earnings taken by government by force of law and given to those who can but refuse to earn it themselves.
BTW, since you opened the door, those oil subsidies go to small firms that without the subsidies could not compete with the larger companies.
The entire subsidy issue was spun by the White House then by lazy reporting on the part of the SM to raise anger toward the oil business in general which the public sees as reaping the benefits of high oil and gas prices. At the end of the day, the Obama admin was hoping to be able to say " see, we're fighting big evil oil companies and punishing them for charging you too much." 
It's all smoke and mirrors. Here's an example that debunks the theory of oil companies' no involvement in raising and lowering of prices and the absence of evidence they are profiteering off the high prices of gas.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43151537


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 24, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Simple. What percent of people recieving subsidized living work for it?



The vast majority.



> How many of these people are on it for life?



The vast majority.


You see, the vast majority of people receiving subsidized living are government employees. They feed at the public trough for 20 years, then retire. The public pays them for life.


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 24, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CountofTuscany said:
> 
> 
> > Simple. What percent of people recieving subsidized living work for it?
> ...



Spin.  That's pay, not a hand out. Those are the jobs taxes are inteneded to go for. It's not subsidized living.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


This just makes you wrong as well.

"Redistribution of wealth" has a specific meaning.

Huge parts of the government aren't involved in the specifics of that meaning, and so there's no way to soundly argue that you cannot have government w/o also redistributing wealth.

As for the post you linned to, I responded to it when you originally posted it.
Nothing you have posted since does anything to negate my response.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> 
> We can debate specific policies, of course, and we ought to, too.
> 
> But to end wealth redistribution entirely demands that we have NO government.



I have to disagree with this a bit.

The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.  It was necessary to provide the common defense and secure the rights of the people.  But that was ALL it was designed to do.  Within the social contract that we call The Constitution, there was provision for some shared services such as post roads, licensing agencies, etc., but these were designed to be fully available to all citizens, rich and poor alike, at all times.  Taxes were seen as necessary to fund the constitutional obligations of the federal government and for no other purpose.

No wealth redistribution was a factor in any of that and would have been anathema to the Founders' concepts of what government should be.



> To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
> 
> A wise and frugal government  shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
> -Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> ...


That  is 100% true.
Redistribution of wealth is a state of mind.
Some believe taxation is redistribution. It is not.
Redistribution is abuse of taxation for the express purpose of punishing those who in the minds of certain political circles, have "too much", "enough" or "have more than their fair share of the finite amount of wealth". The latter is the belief in the zero sum game. 
We can have fair taxation for the express purpose of funding government. That must exist in a world without passion or prejudice. Unfortunately with the Left, passion and prejudice are the key ingredients. Hence the absence of commentary from the Left regarding fiscal responsibility and discipline on the part of government.


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Only if you self-servingly, narrowly and wrongly redefine "redistribution of wealth"


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.



Correct.

And the 'necessary evil' = some level of collection and redistribution of wealth.

The only issue up for intellectually honest debate here is what constitutes the fairest levels and methods of collection and redistribution.  Narrowly defining redistribution to only include programs one opposes constitutes a feeble attempt to apply rigid black & white reasoning to a subjective determination of fairness.  And that's ubertarded.


----------



## Againsheila (May 24, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Define "earn".  Somehow I don't believe CEO's "earn" 500 times more money than their employees.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



That's class envy. Start your own thread.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.
> ...



Well I'm willing to be convinced, but you'll have to give me a better argument than that to do it.  I don't see the Founders' view of taxation as any form of redistribution of wealth via any program.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution or in any of their writings that suggests that any license of any sort is given to government to take from one in order to benefit another.  Presidents and Congresses operated under that principle for more than a century before 'wealth redistribution' started creeping into the process.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Kiddies...._all GOVERNMENT_ is, one way or the other, _wealth redistribution_.
> ...


You are 1000% right.  Government is a necessary evil.  And it is designed to provide for the neccesities as you mentioned. Most of us sane rational people have no problem with that.  I think where we start to get aggitated is how original intent gets so easily corrupted into abuse. Which is exactly what redistribution of wealth is.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.
> ...



thats a very unnecessary evil. that's abuse.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



And the Founders saw the possibility of abuse.  Which is why they knew that the Constitution would work only for a religious and morally centered people committed to doing the right thing rather than what would funnel benefit to themselves.  They knew that once the people realized they could vote themselves money, it would all start falling apart.


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It seems that you are addressing the constitutionality of certain types of redistribution while I have been addressing the concept itself.  Two different kettles of fish.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



exactly, and the problem we are starting to face is that a greater majortiy of the voting population is starting to see this as acceptable.  then what?  how can America ever compete again with this growing anchor around it's neck?


----------



## Againsheila (May 24, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



George W. Bush (Jan. 30, 2007): "The fact is that income inequality is real. It's been rising for more than 25 years."

Joel H. Rassman, Toll Bros. CFO (2006, explaining CEO Robert I. Toll's $20 million compensation 

while shareholders were suffering a 22 percent loss: "I have yet to meet the person who has enough money."
Jim Webb, Senator (Jan. 23, 2007): "When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did. Today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money his or her boss makes in one day." 

Chinese Saying : "Inequality, rather than want, is the cause of trouble."

Plato (427-347 B.C.): "The form of law which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the greatest of all plagues -- not faction, but rather distraction -- there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil . . . Now the legislator should determine what is to be the limit of poverty or of wealth."

Andrew Greeley (Chicago Sun-Times, February 18, 2001): "It should be no surprise that when rich men take control of the government, they pass laws that are favorable to themselves. The surprise is that those who are not rich vote for such people, even though they should know from bitter experience that the rich will continue to rip off the rest of us. Perhaps the reason is that rich men are very clever at covering up what they do."

Walt Whitman (1819-1892): "The greatest country, the richest country, is not that which has the most capitalists, monopolists, immense grabbings, vast fortunes, with its sad, sad soil of extreme, degrading, damning poverty, but the land in which there are the most homesteads, freeholds-where wealth does not show such contrasts high and low, where all men have enough-a modest living-and no man is made possessor beyond the sane and beautiful necessities."

William Gates Sr. (Senate testimony, March 16, 2001): "I believe, with Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, Herbert Hoover and scores of other wise observers in the early 1900s that it is not in the interest of this country to have large fortunes passed from generation to generation forming ever larger pools of money and accretion of power.

Gregory F.A. Pierce (co-founder, Business Executives for Social Justice, 2001): "From a spiritual point of view, it cannot be true that the work of the CEOs of some companies is worth a thousand times that of some other of their employees, just as it cannot be true that because you can get people to work full time for minimum wage they are justly compensated."


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



the concept is wrong and I'm sure the founding father would have found it unconstitutional.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 24, 2011)

CountofTuscany said:


> Spin.  That's pay, not a hand out. Those are the jobs taxes are inteneded to go for. It's not subsidized living.



That's a hand out. Pay for jobs that no one wants or needs done. Followed by free money for life.


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Your opinion and self-righteous degree of certainty duly noted.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No, I am addressing a basic principle that the Founders used to hammer out the U.S. Constitution.   To them it is immoral and a violation of human rights for the U.S. government to take from one citizen and use that to benefit another.  Those who pay the taxes should benefit equally with those who do not.

I honestly can't think of ANY redistribution of wealth the U.S. government could do that would not violate that principle.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 24, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



Yeah... the CEO skillset, depth of knowledge, risk, commitment, etc is such a common thing that any of their employees can do it 

Let alone the fact that you can ask for, demand, negotiate whatever is in the range that fits the need for both sides (employer and potential employee)... and because of the limited amount of people who can actually perform and run a multi million or billion dollar corporation, those who can will demand a hefty sum


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


:roll:
I laugh at you and your sad attempt at a rebuttal.


----------



## Bern80 (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.
> ...



True there can be different defintions of fair. But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair. 

You want the rich to be taxed more yet the fact is taxing the more will not provide you the extra money for all your precious government entitlements. Regardless of you manipulate the tax code, tax revenues always tend to stay between %15-%20 of GDP.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders, classical liberals to a man, saw government as a necessary 'evil'.
> ...


Horsepucky.

Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It would be redistribution of wealth if the taxes to fund the Fire Department were taken from the rich man but used only to put out the poor man's fires.  As long as the rich man benefits equally in fire protection, there is no redistribution of wealth.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

As for the morality, the Founders were pretty much agreed:

Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."

James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


No.   To redistribute wealth, said wealth is taken from party A and, absent any premise of compenation for goods/services renderd, given to party B so that he might live better.

You descibe a failure to provide equal protection.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Having one's fire put out at the expense of another would qualify I think.  Certainly not having one's house burn down would help one live better.

So, unless the Fire Department, funded by taxes, benefits all equally; that is, if it was for the benefit of only one group but not all,  it could easily qualify as a 'redistribution of wealth'.   Same goes for 'free clinics' provided to the poor but not the rich funded at taxpayer expense; free lunches provided to some kids but not all kids, etc.  It doesn't have to be a dollar confiscated from one and given to another to qualify.  Anytime there is no benefit available to the one and there is benefit to another, the principle of redistribution of wealth kicks in.


----------



## keee keee (May 24, 2011)

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
The tax payers? How did the Government get the money they give in subsities? They do nothing but steel the money from the producers, and give to non producers.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

keee keee said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> The tax payers? How did the Government get the money they give in subsities? They do nothing but steel the money from the producers, and give to non producers.





Please explain what money oil companies receive that belongs to others?

From what I've read, the "subsidies" are in the form of accelerated depreciation for tax purposes, which is something all businesses can do for qualifying capital investments.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

keee keee said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> The tax payers? How did the Government get the money they give in subsities? They do nothing but steel the money from the producers, and give to non producers.



The tax breaks the oil companies get is to help offset tremendous expenses for complying with government goals and mandates.  For instance when it is mandated that X percentage of ethanol must be included in domestic fuels, that becomes an enormous expense for oil companies to comply with that mandate.  To mandate that sulphur be removed from diesel fuel is so expensive that no oil company would continue to produce diesel unless there was some tax relief involved.   When the Bush Administration mandated increased development of bio fuels, the oil companies have complied at hundreds of millions of dollars expense to turn say beef fat into fuel.  No oil company would have been willing to incur such expense without some form of compensation.

So in that case there is no transfer of wealth.  You can certainly question whether the government should be spending your tax dollar to micromanage the oil companies, but that is a totally different issue than redistribution of wealth.


----------



## editec (May 24, 2011)

Society is _by definition_ about the business of wealth distribution, lads.

You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.

The question isn't _does a society distribute wealth_ (it must) the question is 

*DOES THE SOCIETY DISTRIBUTE WEALTH IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE SOCIETY AND ITS PEOPLE?*

Societies that fail to do so aren't very successful.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


No.  Party B does not receive the weath generated by party A, and so the wealth was, by defintion, not redistributed to party B.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Society is _by definition_ about the business of wealth distribution, lads.
> 
> You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.
> 
> ...



There is a world of difference, however.  There is wealth distribution that naturally arises out of free trade conducted between people, each expecting to receive value for their part in that trade.  And there is wealth redistribution in which one party receives value and the other not only does not receive value, but has his/her wealth confiscated.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Society is _by definition_ about the business of wealth distribution, lads.


Even if that were true - and it isn't - it does not then follow that society depends on the redistribution of wealth - unless, of course, you self-servingly redefine the term to suit your agenda.


----------



## Againsheila (May 24, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Gregory F.A. Pierce (co-founder, Business Executives for Social Justice, 2001): "From a spiritual point of view, it cannot be true that the work of the CEOs of some companies is worth a thousand times that of some other of their employees, just as it cannot be true that because you can get people to work full time for minimum wage they are justly compensated."


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



But Party B does receive a benefit not available to Party A.  Party B is far richer by having the benefit than he would have been without it while Party A is only poorer.  When Party A's property is confiscated without due compensation and is used to benefit/enrich Party B, that is wealth redistribution at least as I define it.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Society is _by definition_ about the business of wealth distribution, lads.
> 
> You guys aren't thinking very deeply about what societies even are, ya know.
> 
> ...



mmmm maybe in communist russia where the individual is owned by the government.  Is that what we are going for here?


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The 'definition' of fair ain't got squat to do with it.  It's one's subjective 'determination' of fair that is at issue.  And due to the subjectivity of the matter, opinions naturally vary.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



but the rich will always remain in control.  they will tolerate so much. sure it's easier to quell the masses and throw them a bone.  But when they cross the line and start wanting meat on the bone the givers push back.  Then you get oppression.


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Simple.

This particular 'public' service offers much greater value to the owner of an expensive home, located relatively close to a fire station, than it does to the owner of a decrepit shack located so far away from the nearest fire station that even in the event of a fire they wouldn't be much help.


Edit:  My apologies.  You asked me to show how it takes from haves and gives to have nots.  In this case it's actually the other way around.  But it's still redistribution of wealth.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



What about taxing a childless person to fund schools?


----------



## editec (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Society is _by definition_ about the business of wealth distribution, lads.
> ...


 

Yes there certainly is a world of difference.

The key to unraveling the difference is whether *the wealth that's taxed by government is actually giving the taxpayer something of value.*

When government isn't working well, when they do not give good value for the taxes they take from the citizens, then it is_ perfectly reasonable_ for citizens to object to that tax and that goverment.

In the case of all but (I think) a very SMALL percentage of the population, our government does NOT give back nearly what it ought to give back to taxpayers.

*The most aggrieved citizens are, in my opinion, the middle and EVEN most of upper classes.*

Now there are obviously exceptions to that of course. 

But generally speaking working people -- even working people who are making middle SIX FIGURES or low SEVEN figures are being taxed inappropriately for the VALUE they recieve.

Of course I have very little sympathy for those top 1% of the population who are complaining that_ they are overtaxed._

_Obviously_ they are recieiving _great benefit from being citizens in this nation_ and what they pay in taxes to government seems fair enough given the benefits they must be getting by being citizens of this nation,

BUT if they think that they are overtaxed, *those ATLASES ought to SHRUG OFF that horrid burden of taxation* and *find another nation* where they'll be more appreciated.

But you know...they don't leave, Fixfyre.

Why not?

I suspect its because *there's no place where they're better treated or would be taxed at a lower rate than the USA.*


----------



## Foxfyre (May 24, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No different than taxing the property owner who will never have a fire in order to fund a Fire Department or the person who is never a victim of a crime in order to fund a Police Department.  The schools are available to that childless person should he choose or inadvertently acquire child.  He is not prohibited from using the benefit in any way, form, or fashion.  And the entire community benefits from having a good school just as the entire community benefits from having a Fire Department or Police Department or any other nondiscriminatory service selected to be incorporated into the social contract.

Social Contract to promote the general welfare is not wealth redistribution as long as no discriminatory criteria of any kind is applied to one group and not others.

It becomes wealth redistribution only when some are privy to benefits and others are not privy to the same benefits even though they are required to provide them.


----------



## The T (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 


ETA: Good question...WHY waivers for some to ObamaCare...and not others? Just one way your statement can be applied. After all? Fairness counts, does it not?


----------



## Wiseacre (May 24, 2011)

editec said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




Actually, there are a lot of people leaving, we have millions of Americans living off shore and hundreds if not thousands actually renouncing their American citizenship every year.   Why do you think the Gov't is trying to force foreign banks to report American accounts exceeding $10,000?   It's because we have a lot of Americans and their money leaving.   

It ain't all taxes of course, there's other reasons.   But there's a lot of places where you can live pretty high on the hog for a lot less money.   And a lot of places where you can move your business or start a new one and be more profitable than here.   How stupid is that, our own gov'ts policies are incentivizing Americans to leave and disincentivizing foreign investors to go elsewhere.


----------



## boedicca (May 24, 2011)

And many of the ones who remain in America have gone Galt.


----------



## The T (May 24, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 
Precisely. And it is all for the sake of control on the part of an overzealous,overbearing Federal Government that have forgotten thier place...and really need to be reminded.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 24, 2011)

The T said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




I think they got reminded last november, but maybe it didn't take.


----------



## Rodack (May 24, 2011)

Obama has created record debt, record poverty, record foreclosures, record war spending and record food stamp programs



Is that what educated democrats call progress?


LOL


Democrats create ghettos


Nothing more


----------



## Mr. Shaman (May 24, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> This country does not like freeloaders....


.....But, loves the *shit* outta hustlers, rip-offs, and every *other* kind o' *"conservative"* trash!!!​


> "people should all just teach their kids to steal whatever they can get their hands on, whenever they can get their hands on it.
> 
> - after all, that's the morality that drives the "winner" class."
> 
> *Reaganbushenomics*​


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Which begs the question why renters in a community are not required to pay a tax equal to that of the value of the property on which they live in lieu of the tax property owners pay.
In my opinion this would be a fantastic way to insure all residents contribute to the local schools. 
Last week I was waiting for a school bus to unload it's compliment of cupcakes. At least 60 kids got off the bus into the waiting arms of their apartment dwelling parents.
Meanwhile, across town there are single family homes with few or no children and each owner pays hefty amounts to the community to fund schools. Is that right?
I think renters should pay a tax to fund schools as well. Why should they get to enjoy the advantages of the community without paying the price of admission?


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not like freeloaders....
> ...


Ya know what biker boy? That motorcycle in your avatar has a higher IQ than you.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 24, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



An activist.. seriously???

epic fail


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Obama has created record debt, record poverty, record foreclosures, record war spending and record food stamp programs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


every single American city that has gone democrat has seen it's residents taxed to the point where they decided to vote with their feet. That left behind the people incapable or unwilling to escape the high taxes, crime and shitty government of inner cities.
Even in states with very liberal annexation laws which allow cities to gobble up land and "bring back" escaping taxpayers, cities still lose population lose wealth and see their inner parts fall into decay.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


That's not redistribution of wealth.  The wealth does not change hands between parties.  For the wealth to be redistributed, it must reach Party B.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Show how the local fire department redistibutes wealth - that is, how it takes from the haves and gives to the have nots.
> ...


Fail.  The wealth does not transfer from A to B, and so it was not redistributed.



> Edit:  My apologies.  You asked me to show how it takes from haves and gives to have nots.  In this case it's actually the other way around.  But it's still redistribution of wealth.


Only if you self-servingly redefine the term to suit your needs.


----------



## The T (May 24, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


 
Which is why Obama chose to ratchet up his re-election bid early...he knows he's in trouble, and do many Statists in both houses. And they're doing a dilly of a job painting themselves into a corner because they didn't get the message the first time.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 24, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


There's no transfer of wealth, and thus, no redistribution.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 24, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


I'd ask the OP if he considers the location and type of house in which one decides to live a "choice".
If one chooses to live in the sticks, far from the nearest fire station ,should the person who decided to live closer to said fire station, be punished or penalized?


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

The T said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



this federal government is doing more to userp the states power more than any before it.


----------



## Bern80 (May 24, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Essentially a chicken shit way of saying I can't defend my made up definition of a word.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


  i view shaman as like the spam advertising that pops up here. I don't even bother reading his trash


----------



## Mr.Nick (May 24, 2011)

Wow, stealing is immoral.

Taking property from an individual via threat constitutes stealing, err better yet extortion.

ANY tax that is not a sales tax is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.


----------



## snjmom (May 24, 2011)

> But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.



No, that's called good fiscal sense. Like Willie said, it's where the money is.


----------



## Bern80 (May 24, 2011)

snjmom said:


> > But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's called good fiscal sense. Like Willie said, it's where the money is.



Something can make good fiscal sense and still not be fair. Of course it makes sense in terms generating a large revenue. It's why the government has to tax people on a percentage basis rather than collecting the same amount of money from everyone. However it is also only good fiscal sense if you simply take as a given that government actually NEEDS all that money in the first place.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 24, 2011)

snjmom said:


> > But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's called good fiscal sense. Like Willie said, it's where the money is.



In other words, taxation is founded on the moral code of a bank robber.

I love it when libs admit truths they didn't want to admit.


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



separation of church and state bro. don't go looking to bring religion into this argument.  you libs took jesus out of the equation, remember


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



"When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong."

yea, we have a group of entitled, do nothing slugs at the bottom looking for their handout instead of making a living on their own.


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



No one can take Jesus out of the equation, my friend.


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



So the people working at McDonalds are do nothings, and the hedge fund managers are "making a living on their own?"


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

Chris said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



the warren court already did. they taught me it's ok not to have compassion on my felow man.  hell I can't even pray with him in certain places.


----------



## Spoonman (May 24, 2011)

Chris said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


are mcdonalds workers on welfare?   why are they working at mcdonalds anyway? unless they are kids trying to make a few buck in school, or own the franchise.  why didn't they take advantage of the same opportunities afforded them and most of the other people making a decent living?


----------



## snjmom (May 24, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > > But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.
> ...




No, taxation is founded on the moral code of the extortionist. Feel free to pay your taxes to your current extortionist that allows you a vote or take your chances with the other extortionists out there. But believe me, the lone wolf doesn't stand a chance against the pack. 

At least, not in reality.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...





Essentially a chicken shit way of saying uncle.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

I worked until 11 pm last night.
WHY is someone that has been undisciplined, made wrong choices one after another as habit, sits at home and watches American Idol and is addicted to mooching entitled to any of my earnings?


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Wealth can be ONLY controlled when one has EARNED the wealth OR EARNED the ability to control it.


----------



## sparky (May 25, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I worked until 11 pm last night.
> WHY is someone that has been undisciplined, made wrong choices one after another as habit, sits at home and watches American Idol and is addicted to mooching entitled to any of my earnings?



Because like _myself_ you are a sm biz , and the backbone of the social contract with America Gadawg.

my advice here would be , seek those social accolades in _return_

trust me on this, it's all about _how_ you crunch #'s in your books


----------



## Bern80 (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No I didn't. I argued that how you defined fair fits no definition of the term. To which you essentially replied that you get to define words however you feel like.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You've argued a position built upon you getting to dictate what constitutes 'fair'.

I'm merely pointing out what I thought was obvious, that what constitutes fair is up to individual, subjective determination.


----------



## Bern80 (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I'm not dictating anything. Words have meaning and definitions. I am simply abiding by them. You are not.
A person with no money, dependent on government services, can claim all he wants that it is fair that people with money have it taken from them to provide for him for no other reason than they have the resources and he doesn't. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it is.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Fair, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sorry this simple truth destroys your entire argument, but I can't do anything about that, and neither can you.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Hence ANY concept of fairness, whether it be held by one or a number of persons, is FUCKING SUBJECTIVE.. and has NO place in government


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...





Yes, because the world is black and white and leaders never have to make subjective determinations about anything.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 25, 2011)

Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody.   IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others.   

There is a story about the founding fathers discussing the building of the Erie Canal in upstate New York, and whether federal funds should be used.   It did not pass because it was believed that gov't money should not be spent on a project or program unless everybody benefited.    Too bad we got away from that line of thinking, we wouldn't be in the financial mess we're in.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No.. because since 'fairness' is subjective, the key to effective government is EQUALITY in TREATMENT... not some subjective bullshit that can be manipulated for the sake of power and greed, changing government into a bastardized watering trough for personal wants


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody.   IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, *it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others*.



As does collecting tax to fund an army.  Is that also immoral?


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...




Hmmm.... so your solution to this emotionally charged issue, for which disparate opinions abound, is to swap out the word 'fair' for the word 'equal'. 

Wow man, you're a genius!  There couldn't possibly any disagreement now.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Except the world is not black and white, and leaders always make subjective determinations according to their own personal and political needs rather than what is best for everybody.   IMHO, that is one reason why redistributing wealth by the gov't is immoral, *it requires action based on the values of some of us to the cost of others*.
> ...




No, national defense and security are important duties of gov't that individuals cannot do themselves.   Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense, and it is therefore moral.   Not to mention the fact that such respnsibilities are specifically defined in our Constitution.

There's a difference between taxing people's money for the benefit of all as opposed to spending that money to the benefit of only some citizens.   There are exceptions, like supporting those who cannot support themselves, and those who need temporary help, like the people who've lost everything as a result of the tornados or can't find work due to the recession.   But arbitrarily deciding what's fair and redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't just because they don't have as much is immoral IMHO.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.



I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



You can disagree all you want.. you have the FREEDOM to do so.. the very same and EQUALLY PROTECTED freedoms as every other citizen... not some subjective freedom that is different for you than for someone else that is funded by those who do not have the freedom and who are also paying for it via taxation


----------



## Wiseacre (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.
> ...




I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen does not benefit from  a strong national defense.   You can surely argue that the wars in Iraq and elsewhere were unnecessary, is that your point?


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



My disagreement stems from your claim that the benefit is shared *equally*.

I would like to read your argument as to why you think every citizen benefits equally from military spending.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > > But demanding more of some just because they have more does not fit any definition of the word fair. Taxing people nothing just because they have little also does not fit any definition of fair.
> ...


Barney Frank who was opposed to federal deficits during the Bush admin, changed his tune once the democrats gained the majority in Congress.

News Headlines.

Here's the quote by Frank.....
FRANK: I THINK AT THIS POINT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A FOCUS ON AN IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN SPENDING AND I THINK THIS IS A TIME WHEN DEFICIT FEAR HAS TO TAKE A SECOND SEAT. I DO THINK THIS IS A TIME FOR A VERY IMPORTANT KIND OF DOSE OF CHANGE. YES I BELIEVE LATER ON THERE SHOULD BE TAX INCREASES. SPEAKING PERSONALLY, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF RICH PEOPLE OUT THERE WHOM WE CAN TAX AT A POINT DOWN THE ROAD AND RECOVER SOME OF THIS MONEY. BUT I DO THINK RIGHT NOW, IF WE DO NOT DO THIS KIND OF STIMULUS, THE DEFICIT WILL GET EVEN WORSE THAN IF WE DO IT. BECAUSE THE RESULTING LACK OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WILL CAUSE A LOSS IN TAX REVENUES THAT WILL SERIOUSLY DAMAGE US.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


Please explain that.
What difference does it make how much wealth someone has?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Nice sneaky attempt to change your focus from national defense to military spending....

As for national defense.. please name any group of citizens that do not fall under the blanket of national defense... any group of citizens that fall under a defense that is of lesser quality... 

we'll be waiting


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

Chris said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


No. That's not part of the discussion. The focus is on people who can work but refuse to work because it is easier for them to feed at the taxpayer trough


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



YES, defined CONSTITUTIONALLY.
MANDATED.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Dead is DEAD.
You can't take your $$ with you.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Nice sneaky attempt to change your focus from national defense to military spending....



Nothing sneaky about it.  Military spending is at the core of what we are discussing.  It's far more sneaky to layer in your own spin with phrases such as "strong national defense".

We are talking about *SPENDING* tax money to fund a *Military* complex.  That is a fact.  Let's try to stick with facts whenever possible.  Deal?


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


The Left sees the world in terms of "equality of outcome"....Everyone else sees it in terms of "equal treatment under the law".
In other words, to the Left, equal treatment is not good enough. That more must be done to insure the possibility that all people end up equal whether they achieved or not. 
That concept is incompatible with liberty, justice and freedom.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> As for national defense please name any group of citizens that do not fall under the blanket of national defense... any group of citizens that fall under a defense that is of lesser quality...



I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend a position I have never taken.

My position is that the benefits of military spending are not shared *equally* by all citizens.

Please make your case that they are.

I'll be waiting...


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Every citizen benefits equally from a strong national defense.
> ...


Ok....So let's say a foreign force invades the United States. But on the opposite coast from where you reside.
Our military destroys the enemy and the threat is extinguished. Is it your premise you received no benefit from the defense of your country and the people?


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...




You may actually have a valid point buried in there somewhere, but I'm having trouble finding it through the obfuscating haze of partisan rhetoric.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


That's not what you stated earlier. You stated that having a strong military does not equally benefit all. 
Now you are interjecting a different issue.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



My premise is there is no logical basis whatsoever to support the notion that the benefits derived from military spending are *shared equally*.  To imagine that it's even possible, let alone plausible, strikes me as decidedly imbecilic.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nice sneaky attempt to change your focus from national defense to military spending....
> ...


No.. it is completely different... because a person with a job in the military or a business owner who wins a contract from the military can be deemed as benefiting differently from military spending... but that person is not benefiting any differently from the same national defense as a citizen as anyone else


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Again, I'm simply trying to deal in facts whenever possible.  The fact of the matter is that we collect taxes and spend that money on a military.  Whether or not we get a strong military in return, or if 100% of that spending improves military strength, are matters of opinion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 25, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


We should redistribute weath because Jesus says so?


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 25, 2011)

Chris said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


I suppose you're then OK with legislating all of the morality laid out in the bible?


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DD's logic

- The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of military spending of course are not shared equally.
- However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of having a strong national defense is shared equally.

DD's logic applied to welfare
- The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of welfare of course are not shared equally.
- However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of less hunger, poverty and crime is shared equally.


Ok, works for me.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


Ok.. Let me make this clear. The money we spend on our military is a Constitutionally mandated essential function of government. There is no intent  to "share" some perceived benefit.
The military exists to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's all.

What is it you expect to receive as a result of military spending.
Ya know what.....Never mind. I am not interested in your twisted logic on this matter. Reason: See above after "let me make this clear".


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



The 'constitutionality' of the various mechanisms for wealth redistribution is an entirely different kettle of fish.  I'm talking about the morality of it, not the constitutionality.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DD's logic
> 
> - The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of military spending of course are not shared equally.
> - However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of having a strong national defense is shared equally.
> ...



No.. the product of the military is the defense of the nation.. not the jobs that can be derived from the necessary funding of the military for national defense... 

The funding of the military for defense is not currently paid for by everyone because not everyone pays income tax on their yearly earnings, and there are differing rates paid by most every citizen that does pay

Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense

You are all over the place with your nitwittery and scatterbrained thinking


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense.



In your opinion.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 25, 2011)

We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have _income_ redistribution._ Wealth_ redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking _income_ from those who have more _income_.

There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...





Where does it say in the Bible that the government should force one to "Love They Neighbor As Thyself" and transfer one's possessions to said neighbor?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense.
> ...



Simply state what group of the citizenry receives no protection from the national defense or a differing level of quality of national defense.... 2nd time this is asked of you.. I'm still waiting for your answer


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I didn't say either of those things.

I said the benefits are not shared equally IMO.

Please explain why you think they are?  2nd time this is asked of you... I'm still waiting for your answer.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I did not say you said them.. I asked you to clarify.. since national defense is the benefit given by a government funded military

Please answer the question

You're certainly tap dancing


----------



## Bern80 (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Again, you simply saying so doesn't make it so. There is no simple truth that I am aware of that says people get to ascribe any definition they feel like to any word they feel like.  Grab a dictionary a tell us all what definition of fair your notion that taking from those for no other reason than they have more, fits.


----------



## Bern80 (May 25, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have _income_ redistribution._ Wealth_ redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking _income_ from those who have more _income_.
> 
> There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.



Semantics Poo. As soon as I receive it, my income IS my wealth.


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have _income_ redistribution._ Wealth_ redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking _income_ from those who have more _income_.
> ...



Says the guy arguing what is 'fair' based on his own subjective judgement of fairness, while pretending his proclamations are fact on account of a dictionary definition.

The absudity never ends. 

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Are you asking me to give you a 'party A', 'party B' example of the benefits of a strong national defense not being shared equally?  I can do that pretty easily.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I am asking if you think anyone derives a different benefit from a government funded military when the product of the government funded military is national defense... for indeed that is the product...

Again.. what group of citizens have differing levels of protection from national defense or no protection from national defense??


----------



## manifold (May 25, 2011)

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.




Whether or not I have a personal AR-15 and the training to use it, while you do not, is irrelevant

Again.. what group of citizens have differing levels of protection from national defense or no protection from national defense??


----------



## DiamondDave (May 25, 2011)

Nice avoidance.. and spewing of absolute bullshit... government does not equal wealth redistribution.. repeatedly stating it does not make it so

And you're still avoiding the question...


----------



## Againsheila (May 25, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



You're joking right?  Have you looked at the job opportunities lately?  Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (May 25, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



Spoken like an ignorant moron. You think the Oil industry is the only industry that gets subsidies?  Have you ever complained about Ducks Unlimited getting 40 plus million a year in subsidies?  And what is it that they produce?

You fucking big oil haters piss me off. You ought to have you ass whooped and not be allowed to use ANY product derived from petroleum.


----------



## Gadawg73 (May 25, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



Fuck the Ducks Unlimited People also.
No one should get any welfare, ever.
I do not hate big oil. I like them but they should get NO $$$ from the taxpayers. 
They lobby for that $$$. Makes a mockery of the entire system.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> You're joking right?  Have you looked at the job opportunities lately?  Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?



Have you forgotten the real problem with employment? Obama?

BTW sparky, there are more jobs today than there were in 2000.

More than in 2007.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Most people who wanted to work found work in 2000 though.  Also in 2007.  It isn't quite so easy to find work that you want to do these days.  And I question whether there are more jobs now, but if there are, I'm pretty sure it's because of the hundreds of thousands of government jobs added since Obama took office and not because of economic growth.

And are you guys really arguing about whether the national defense is equally applied?  You've got to be kidding.   Is not the homeless guy at the shelter protected in the same way as the guy in the multi-million dollar mansion?

Inequality is not in who is defended.  That works very well.  The inequality is in the pork and favoritism of who gets the defense contracts and that is something everybody should be looking at.

To correct that situation, however, as well as in all other government spending, we will have to make it illegal for the Federal government to dispense charity or favoritism of any kind.  Do that, and we will fix a multitude of problems.


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.





Are you kidding?  Do you think people who are capable of defending themselves benefit less by not being put into a position of having to do so?

Puh-leeeze.  That is absolute popppycock.


----------



## Spoonman (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.



Then would you agree is it wrong for members of congress to try to change the constitution in ways that would make people less prepared?


----------



## Spoonman (May 25, 2011)

boedicca said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.
> ...



Maybe, if future wars were going to be fought with handguns and hunting rifles instead of aircraft carriers, tomohawk missles and drones.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.
> ...



Well I think I know Manifold well enough to know that he didn't intend this the way I think a lot of us are taking it.

But if you look at the arguments some are making, those who make/earn/acquire more wealth should pay more but be entitled to less in government services than those who make/earn/acquire less.

So if you translate that same logic to national defense, the guy with a shotgun, deer rifle, and a couple of handguns should not be entitled to the same protection as the guy who has no gun.

Sometimes these things become absolutely that absurd.


----------



## Spoonman (May 25, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I think the rich should pay more. that makes absolute sense. And every one should be entitled to the same level of protection.  even if they pay nothing at all.    No issues with any of that.     Where I see the problem with all of this  is I don't think the rich should be taxed to support the poor, and by that I mean pay for them to live, welfare and all that.  And I don't think they should be taxed more and more as those costs are ever increasing.

by the same token, I don't think they should be taxed more because government inefficiencies continue to drive up costs.  

We need to stop bandaiding problems and fix them


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I am a flat tax person.  I think the rich and poor alike should pay exactly the same percentage of taxes based on whatever criteria we come up with.  I prefer an income tax, but an absolutely flat tax, but I'm open to anything that would make more sense to me.

Under such a system the rich man will indeed be paying a great deal more than the poor man, but the poor man should pay something nevertheless so that he has a stake in the system, he incurs whatever benefits or consequences result from actions of Congress, and incentive to vote for the best government he can get rather than the one who will take from the rich to give to him.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


So noted


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 25, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...


Since it makes sense to you, why should the rich "pay more"?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 25, 2011)

Refocusing on the discussion between Spoonman and Manifold, how did 'provide the common defense' become an issue of morality?  But is it not moral to defend oneself?  To defend the innocent?  To protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people?

There is indeed room to argue morality of specific military actions or expenditures, but the concept of common defense in the Constitution was not one based on morality but necessity in order for the people to have their rights secured.

And to secure those rights was defended on moral grounds by the Founders.  And the Founders knew that the Constitution securing those rights would only work with a mostly religious and moral people.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 25, 2011)

I think the question should focus on the morality of _Forced_ Wealth redistribution. AKA Robbery.

I'm completely against Robbery in all it's forms, legal or illegal.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have _income_ redistribution._ Wealth_ redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking _income_ from those who have more _income_.
> ...



The basis of income tax isn't your total _wealth_, its your total _income_


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 25, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The basis of income tax isn't your total _wealth_, its your total _income_



So then, it's sort of a steel plate on ladder to keep those on the lower rungs from climbing up?

It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.

Got it!


----------



## dblack (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > The basis of income tax isn't your total _wealth_, its your total _income_
> ...



It is a little curious how so many regulations nominally designed to punish the wealthy and powerful actually protect them.


----------



## freedombecki (May 25, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> ...helped along with Pub deregulation and lack of enforcement...10 years of "Deregulation!!" and "Corporations know best!" gets you this EVERY TIME!! Ay caramba...Keating Five, S+L Crisis, huge deficits, fraud, bubbles, and a great recession. The myth of Pub business sense is a farce...



You're blaming the Keating Five on the Republican Party?

Do you know which party each Senator involved was in? I do:

Alan Cranston, D-CA
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Dennis DeConcini, D-AZ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Donald W. Riegle, D-MI 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 John Glenn, D-OH 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 John McCain, R-AZ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




From Wikipedia:

Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totaling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".​
Picture and historical credits

The only Republican involved did not do what was claimed he did, and he proved it to the Senate Ethics Committee.

You need to get your facts correct before you start slinging serious mud around. This week, I completed work on 6 quilts for a Russian orphanage. No offense, but it is important to me to do what I can to help our two countries get along, including straightening out this kind of a political error that is egregious and based in emotion, not in fact.

Please do not sling mud at people who are your country's friend when they are called upon to help. I've been to Russia. I know the Russian people have had hardships, but they also have friends who value their role in bringing about world peace, which is sorely needed.

All you need is love to heal a rift. Anger to the point of being blind to the facts should be lessened when all the facts are on the table and nothing is hidden.

There's no doubt in my mind, some Republicans have made mistakes, and that is front page news in the liberal media. When Democrats make mistakes, their story is ignored, or placed on page 63 at the bottom where the greater public is least likely to take any notice, as the words are soft. The words delivered against any Republican are glaring, harsh, and melodramatic. Don't be deceived by America's mad dog partisan press.


----------



## freedombecki (May 25, 2011)

dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Hello, dblack, and welcome to USMessageboards.

Our founders built America so people could enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they created a loose federation of states that had certain governance rights.

The government was mainly formed to oversee a militia that would protect these shores from unfriendly advances from anybody with a gunboat and ambitions to steal people's earnings. Now the government acts like it wants to steal people's earnings. That is the focus of conservatives, to keep government out of people's personal business where government was never intended to be. The free enterprise system should still be open to all who'd like to pursue wealth.

I'm appalled at government being run by people who have forgotten American tenets.


----------



## Rodack (May 25, 2011)

If Democrat socialist scum want to redistribute their wealth, then have at it. Give it away. 

Freedom is the right to choose NOT to give away ones wealth



America was built on individual rights, personal property rights and laws protecting me and my stuff.


 Not collectivism


If you want collectivism:

 go to Cuba (where they just cut Gov't parasitic employees by 50% ) or Venezuala ( where they have energy blackouts and rationing ) or Iceland ( where their money is worthless and business is fleeing ) or Bankrutped Spain, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, or France ( which is currently on fire becuase the lazy have to work 1 more year before the state take care of them forever.........Collectivism is for Socialist Tyrants that want to control your lives and your money in order to gain power over the masses.

Nothing more


----------



## Gunny (May 25, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



Like the Chief didn't ask you any of the above, Mr Deflection.


----------



## dblack (May 25, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> Hello, dblack, and welcome to USMessageboards.



Many thanks. Seems like a pretty good board so far.



> I'm appalled at government being run by people who have forgotten American tenets.



Me too. But I think you may have missed my point. Many of our economic regulations and tax policies are justified on the assumption that they will somehow 'punish' wealth, or even redistribute it. Despite that, they often work (either inadvertently, or by design) to do the opposite. I was particularly responding to Uncensored's implication that taxing income actually protects the privileged status of established wealth. Regulations often have these kinds of unintended consequences or moral hazard associated with them.


----------



## Rodack (May 25, 2011)

Inside every Democrat is a little Tyrant that wants to run everyone elses lives from lightbulbs to taxes, from oil emissions to McDonalds Happy meals



Abort a Democrat




Stay Free


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 25, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Inside every Democrat is a little Tyrant that wants to run everyone elses lives from lightbulbs to taxes, from oil emissions to McDonalds Happy meals
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're solution is to abort Democrats? How do you know what political party an unborn child is going to join?

wouldn't the better solution be to convince them with superior arguments to do what is right?


----------



## Rodack (May 25, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Rodack said:
> 
> 
> > Inside every Democrat is a little Tyrant that wants to run everyone elses lives from lightbulbs to taxes, from oil emissions to McDonalds Happy meals
> ...






Abort: To terminate (an undertaking or procedure) before implementation.


If we can abort a democrat, their platform is stopped before implemented, usually saving the tax payer trillions


I will try to dumb it down for everyone, I am only here to learn


----------



## Againsheila (May 25, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > You're joking right?  Have you looked at the job opportunities lately?  Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?
> ...



When I graduated highschool, construction jobs paid a minimum of $15.00 an hour, now, more than 30 years later, they pay less than that.  Do you know anything else that has gone down that much?  Besides pay, I mean.

Jobs in the service industry don't count.  They don't pay.  Factory and Manufacturing jobs paid, we got rid of those.

Only an idiot believes free trade is actually "free", or that American benefited from it in any way.


----------



## Bern80 (May 25, 2011)

manifold said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



And I think it was you that said we basically get to ascribe whatever definition we want to words. Thanks for showing how very convenient that is. Makes it awfully easy to win an argument.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 25, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




Could I interest you in a discussion tomorrow on the benefits of free trade?   I'll post a thread in the Economy area and present my arguments for why it's a good idea.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > The basis of income tax isn't your total _wealth_, its your total _income_
> ...


??? The income tax is progressive. Your statement makes no fucking sense. The incomes of those on the lower run are in effect enhanced by subsidies from those on the higher rungs. This gives those on the lower rung more money than they would otherwise have, enabling them to get education they might not otherwise have or to save to invest in a business they might not otherwise be able to save for, enabling them to move up the ladder.

I think its a great system. I expect I'll be making a lot more money 20 years from now than I am now - and I'm certainly willing to exchange a higher tax burden 20 years from now when i'll be making much more money in exchange for a lower burden now when I need the money more.

The income tax is in effect - all else being equal - a way to shift the burden from the young and old to the working middle aged. Since we will all - hopefully - be young, middle aged, and old at one point in our lives, that's fine. I'm willing to pay more in middle age - when I'm at the peak of my earning capacity - in exchange for paying less when I'm young and when I'm in retirement - _aren't you?_ 

This is precisely how right wing quotations of the number of people paying net income tax distorts the practical truth - YES a lot of those folks will NEVER pay net income tax in their lives. But most of those who pay no net income tax _at this point in time_ are not paying net income tax because they are a) young and have little income due to their lack of experience and education b) temporarily unemployed because of the bad economy c) in retirement and living on less income than they did when working. Quotations of the number of people paying net taxes NOW do not equate to the percent of people who will/have pay/paid net income tax over their _lifetimes_






> It doesn't tax wealth, just the attempt to accumulate wealth.


Accumulation of wealth has much more to do with your propensity for thrift and your ability to make wise investments than it does your income tax rate.


----------



## Bern80 (May 26, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



You are amazingly short sighted.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

Guess mani is scared to actually answer the question asked


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2011)

dblack said:


> It is a little curious how so many regulations nominally designed to punish the wealthy and powerful actually protect them.



Almost like they were designed that way.....


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Right because looking at taxation over an entires person's life is "short sighted" but looking at taxation at this instant is "long term planning". Sometimes I wonder if you know what words mean.


----------



## Bern80 (May 26, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Dude, you're the one who said they would gladly trade the future for the present.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Dude, you're the one who said they would gladly trade the future for the present.



People do that every time they take out a home loan - or any loan for that matter -  shit for brains.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 26, 2011)

The reality is that without the "rich", there is much less opportunity for the poor to become unpoor or even to do more than subsist.  You cannot 'punish' or take wealth from the rich without hurting the poor.  I have cited specific examples over various threads over the past months and won't repeat those here unless necessary.

Many here are not making a distinction between income and wealth; however these are not the same thing.   Income, however, is a component of a person's wealth.

As for the morality of wealth redistribution:

If it is immoral for you to take what is mine and use it for your personal benefit, it is immoral for your government to do that on your behalf.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 26, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


These free trade agreements were disaster on the drawing board. They were devised in theory as a means to boost the economies of third world countries. 
Of course what happened was the laws of unintended consequences quickly came to bear. Fast forward to today.....SHIT..
We need fair trade. Not free trade.
Free trade cannot be established with an economically inferior trading partner.


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.



Same point can be easily made regarding infrastructure, law enforcement, education, the justice system, welfare, and on down the line.

The point is that assuming that ANY benefits derived from ANY government are shared perfectly evenly across the citizenry is beyond imbecilic.  Government equals wealth redistribution.  Failure to acknowledge reality doesn't make it go away.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population.  Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis.  Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen.  It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.
> ...



No... your continual repetition of the myth that government is wealth redistribution, does not make it fact nor truth....

And the benefit of the product of national defense is the EXACT SAME for every citizen.... again... answer the question posed....


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I agree, my repetition doesn't make it true.  It's the fact that it's true, that makes it true.  When you can conceive of a government that doesn't tax, you let me know.  Until then, government will always be redistributing wealth.  Your repeated denial of truth doesn't make it go away.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


It does....   if you re-define the term for your own self-serving puposes.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



You seem to think it does.. with the ONLY 'proof' being your assertion.... and it is not a government taxation that is in question.... it's your asinine and unproven assertion that government equates to wealth redistribution

Now AGAIN... Answer the FUCKING QUESTION POSED.... or do you need me to post it for like the 10th time??


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I've made several posts in support of my 'assertion', to which you have yet to post any sort of counter-argument.  The best you've got is grandstanding about non-sequiturs.  I don't care how right you are or think you are, that's an underwhelming and unconvincing strategy every time.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No.. you made additional assertions of your opinion.... like a self appointed know-it-all.. which is the best that you have... speaking of unconvincing strategy

Try going back to school or reading exactly what a government is in it's base form... instead of asserting what you want it to be as some definition


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

AND AGAIN... answer the fucking question

*Again.. what group of citizens have differing levels of protection from national defense or no protection from national defense??*


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2011)

I already told you I don't do non-sequiturs and I don't feel any obligation to defend a position I have never taken.

My foundational position is that government is impossible without taxation, and taxation by definition is the collection and redistribution of wealth.

If I cannot get you to agree with this then we are at an impasse and cannot advance this discussion any further.


----------



## Bern80 (May 26, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, you're the one who said they would gladly trade the future for the present.
> ...



Taking out a loan that has a manageable repayment method is a bit different than simply assuming you will have more money tomorrow so it doesn't matter if you burn through some now.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> I already told you I don't do non-sequiturs and I don't feel any obligation to defend a position I have never taken.
> 
> My foundational position is that government is impossible without taxation, and taxation by definition is the collection and redistribution of wealth.
> 
> If I cannot get you to agree with this then we are at an impasse and cannot advance this discussion any further.



Yes you DID take that position... point blank... it is in the thread history...

Your foundation is that government equates to wealth redistribution.. which is not inherent with the concept of taxation... taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it... epic fail;... and yet another try by you to present your assertion as definition or proof...

You sir, are either an arrogant self-appointed know-it all, or ignorant as fuck


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> ...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...



A distinction without a difference IMO.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The reality is that without the "rich", there is much less opportunity for the poor to become unpoor or even to do more than subsist.



The idea that the economy cannot produce unless wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few is frankly _retarded._ 

I'm buying a house right now - I'm borrowing $160,000. I have no idea if the money for that loan came from one man with $160,000 or 160 people with $1000 each - and I don't care. Neither does the seller or the economy.

The majority of net new jobs are created by SMALL businesses anyway.


> You cannot 'punish' or take wealth from the rich without hurting the poor.


 Oh fucking cry me a river, its been the same old trickle down bullshit since Reagan and guess what? It still doesn't work.  Rich people don't make jobs, demand for goods and services makes jobs. If a rich man doesn't take advantage of an opportunity in the economy some less rich man with a bank loan and some ambition will come along and take advantage of it.


Seriously if your house needed fixing - would you wait for a rich man to come along and tell you that it needs fixing?



> Many here are not making a distinction between income and wealth; however these are not the same thing.   Income, however, is a component of a person's wealth.


 Income and wealth aren't even measured with the same units and they don't always correlate. Heck ask anyone who owns a carpet cleaning or landscaping business or any kind of home service business who they have more trouble collecting bills from? Its the folks in the country club - living above their means, pretending to be richer than they are - that don't pay the carpet cleaner guy on time. Meanwhile middle class folks living in decent but not rich neighborhoods don't order a carpet cleaning service or a home repair service unless they've budgeted the money to pay for it.


----------



## frazzledgear (May 26, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



You just pulled the typical liberal stunt of trying to change the subject to something you'd rather discuss -and then try to pretend the immorality rises to the same level and causes the same kind of damage to society.  Oil subsidies have nothing to do with this thread, it isn't the same kind of thing - one poses a threat to the very character of a people and harms people individual by individual.  The other is needlessly putting a middleman in the middle of the supply-and-demand equation and anytime you do that, it will force people to pay even more for their goods and services than they would without the middle man.  Each additional middle man takes his cut first before moving the money and/or product down the line to the consumer -even government.  ESPECIALLY government.   

So let's your cheesy shift in subject out of the way right here.   I think all subsidies of any kind for businesses should end.  Anything government touches, it only makes it more expensive for everyone.   There is no such thing as "too big to fail" which only forces taxpayers to foot the bill for the most inefficient, most wasteful, least productive businesses who are selling products the people didn't want in the first place -which is why they are failing in the first place!   Which makes NO sense -because once again, it is punishing the most successful while rewarding the worst! 

Failed businesses cause temporary pain but long term gain.  The left thinks avoiding the short term pain is preferable when in reality that pain multiplies over time.  Other companies absorb the failed one or the failed is broken up and absorbed by many -who will either figure out how to make a product the public wants for a price they are willing to pay, or go under themselves until someone does it right.  I don't want government subsidizing businesses to find alternative sources of energy -after all the fucking years government has been doing that, we the taxpayers stuck footing the bill for BILLIONS for it -have nothing to show for it.  If its a good idea private investors will get in on the action -and if they can't convince private investors to jump in where do fucking politicians get off forcing taxpayers on the hook for it instead??  If its such a bad idea private investors won't risk their money on it, then taxpayers should NOT be forced to risk theirs instead!

But in the case of oil companies, they aren't even failing!  The subsidies are given to encourage and help defray the cost of exploration and drilling for new sources with the silly notion that at least taxpayers might recoup some of their money at the pump where the price MAY end up being a few cents cheaper.   

Its a screwy idea and an anti-free market idea at that.  Oil compaines make plenty of money, they are still going to explore and drill with or without those subsidies and they can bear the up front costs of doing so all by themselves.  Of course those costs will be passed on to consumers at the pump.  That's the way it works and I have no problem with that.  But at least what I will end up paying will be based on my own personal consumption instead of some cookie cutter one-size fits all share of the burden of subsidizing it as a taxpayer!  As if I OWE oil companies even more of MY money in order to go look for more oil they are going to go looking for anyway -and will still pass on the costs of that exploration, drilling and refining right on to me as a consumer no matter what.  Subsidizing them only puts another middleman into the equation.  EVERY middle man takes a cut of the money before moving it on -so adding middle men between you and the goods or serves you want means you will definitely end up spending more than if you just paid for it directly yourself.    So let's pay for it directly and cut out government subsidies, cut out government as some kind of middle man along with the cut government takes in the process!

*As for the original question which is what this thread is about* -I believe it is immoral to the max for government to confiscate what one person has earned for himself -in order to give it to someone who did not.  (Not cannot, DID not.)  NOBODY objects to providing legitimate assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves and nobody objects to providing short term assistance with the full expectation it IS short term and intended to provide a _temporary_ cushion while getting back on your feet -not as a way of life.  This notion that government is supposed to make life "more fair" for people is impossible.  You can't make life fair and all attempts to make it fair only imposes unfairness on someone else.  People are not equally creative, ambitious, driven, innovative -so the only way for government to even PRETEND it can make life fair - is by making life even more unfair for someone else.  Which is MORE unfair?  Someone who didn't work to earn it not having it -or someone who busted their ass to earn it see it confiscated by government and given to someone else?  That is FAR more immoral to say nothing of being counterproductive!  Redistribution of the wealth is an ideology that views the successful as a class that must be punished and made an example of -even while those intent on confiscating what they earned insist they aren't.  Its a lie -when you confiscate from a man what he has earned in order to give it someone who did not -you have punished the guy who worked and you have punished his success at what he does.  Instead of encouraging others to emulate him, you send a message to EVERYONE that if this guy had just failed instead of being successful -government would have rewarded him for it with the money someone had worked to earn.  And gee, isn't it better to sit on your ass and save your energy to fill out all that government paperwork instead?   HELPING someone with constant handouts -is not helping them.  It is soul destroying and no kindness.  IT IS CRUEL!

Our system has increasingly been rewarding more and more people for the poor decisions they have made -while trying to relieve them of the natural consequences of those poor decisions and foist them off on those who made good decisions because they wanted to avoid the bad consequences in the first place!  Where is the morality in that?  People only stop making poor decisions when they realize the only way to avoid the unpleasant consequences for them is to start making better decisions!  Foisting them off on those who made other decisions in order to avoid those consequences is disgusting, cripples the individual even further, increases the likelihood the individual will continue making poor decisions for himself -and therefore is anything but moral.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > ...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...
> ...



Again... your OPINION... which is ALL you based your definitions on.... There is a HUGE difference between administration and redistribution


----------



## The T (May 26, 2011)

mudwhistle said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


 
First Goverment would have to admit that the money isn't theirs to start with.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > ...taxation, by definition, is not the collection and redistribution of wealth.... but is indeed the collections of funds for the running and administration of that government... not the redistribution of it...
> ...



There is a difference and I think the definition of it is critical to the debate:

Redistribution of wealth:



> Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity or tort law.[1] Most often it refers to progressive redistribution, from the rich to the poor, although it may also refer to regressive redistribution, from the poor to the rich.[2] The desirability and effects of redistribution are actively debated on ethical and economic grounds.   (Wiki)
> 
> Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits.   (Business Dictionary)



That is very different from taxes collected to pay for the administration of a government intnded to provide basic protections and necessary basic services to all the citizens without discriminating on the basis of status, wealth, etc.


----------



## CountofTuscany (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Exactly. One provides services available to all or any who choose to use them. The other provides funding to selct individuals.  You can't take your police service and go buy a steak with it. You can't take your share of road maintanance and go buy a beer with it.


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



But.. the key is... redistribution of wealth is not government.. nor is it an inherent part of government... governments can and do take part in that practice, but that does not make government a system of wealth redistribution


----------



## The T (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
*TAKING* by force the treasure of one _individual_ to embellish another was _never_ the goal, or _intent_ of the Framers.

They instead chose to tax _Commerce_ of the individual, where the _individual_ would have a say by participating in such commerce, or _not._

Part of the recipe of true liberty that is no longer taught in this nation my friend.

1913 was a BAD YEAR for Liberty...


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



In your opinion.  Which apparently differs from mine.

Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## The T (May 26, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


 
Laid out for all to see. What we have now sadly are those that think that they're entitled to it for thier life's poor choices...and THEY have been taught this...it's sad and maddening as Hell.


----------



## The T (May 26, 2011)

And a WORD to the wise? *YOU* are NOT entitled to my wallet because *YOU* refuse to exercise your liberty _wisely._

_Learn it, Live it, Know it._


----------



## Rodack (May 26, 2011)

democrats steal trillions and trillions of wealth then get shot in the head like in AZ, still having the audacity to act surprised.....why? why?

Is anyone really surprised?



a thief got shot


Nothing more


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

manifold said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No... in actuality,, you can look up the definition of government... and of taxation.. and nowhere in there is there anything about redistribution.. 

Sorry.. that is FACT

Go back to school, son


----------



## DiamondDave (May 26, 2011)

Oh... and do you also need me to link you to the definitions of administration and redistribution??...

This is like clubbing a baby seal.. but less fun


----------



## The T (May 26, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Oh... and do you also need me to link you to the definitions of administration and redistribution??...
> 
> This is like clubbing a baby seal.. but less fun


 
*CLUB AWAY* I'm enjoying it...About time these idiots were put in their place. KUDOS to you.


----------



## JFK_USA (May 26, 2011)

The fact of the matter is that without these people who don't make millions of dollars are actually making their company millions of dollars means they should get a bigger piece of the pie they helped earn.

You know why? They have idiots like you saying "Oh you are useless because you don't make millions of dollars." They know they will get away with not paying the worker more for increased productivity because they aren't special millionaires. Go ahead, ask for a pay raise, you'll get laughed out of the building or fired on the spot. But I know every republican on here make millions so of course they eat this shit up because hey why get the fair share of what you bring to a company when they can lowball you and make you feel useless.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 26, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> The fact of the matter is that without these people who don't make millions of dollars are actually making their company millions of dollars means they should get a bigger piece of the pie they helped earn.
> 
> You know why? They have idiots like you saying "Oh you are useless because you don't make millions of dollars." They know they will get away with not paying the worker more for increased productivity because they aren't special millionaires. Go ahead, ask for a pay raise, you'll get laughed out of the building or fired on the spot. But I know every republican on here make millions so of course they eat this shit up because hey why get the fair share of what you bring to a company when they can lowball you and make you feel useless.


Yes all of us conservatives are millionaires. I confess!..
Jesus Christ. Have a you clue how ridiculous this post makes you appear?
Oh on the employment front...If you don't think your skills are respected enough to merit more pay, here's a novel idea....start your own business. Then the only person you can bitch at for not being paid enough is YOU!


----------



## manifold (May 27, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



from previous post...



manifold said:


> ...subjects like this are great jumping off points for exploratory and open minded discussion of things that at there core, are still merely philosophical opinions.  Without exception, whatever anyone posits on this subject, it is an opinion.  And that opinion in turn, is based on some other opinion.  And so on.  At no point in this discussion is it possible to trace the formation of ones final opinion back to irrefutable fact.  This alone usually sends the more astute partisans into the shadows.  The less astute will boldly challenge the aforementioned truism and disqualify themselves from my further consideration.



But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > The fact of the matter is that without these people who don't make millions of dollars are actually making their company millions of dollars means they should get a bigger piece of the pie they helped earn.
> ...



That's right.  The last twenty years that I worked for somebody else before we went into business for ourselves, I worked straight commission.  By choice.   No retirement or health plan other than what I provided for myself.  No job security other than making myself valuable to those who hired me.  No paid holidays or vacations.  No benefits of any kind.  Just agreed fees for work performed.  And almost all of us who chose to work on commission out earned the salaried personnel with benefits by a LOT.

There was no way I could be overpaid nor underpaid because I controlled what I earned.

When in business for ourselves, our income depends on how skilled we are in managing that business, how well we can sell our services to those willing to pay for them, and how hard we are willing to work to get ahead.  There are many variables in that.  But as CEO, how much I choose to pay myself is purely my choice and should be nobody's business but mine.

Through taxes and fees, the community shares the cost of lights, power, sewers, roads, and fire and police protection and the rich man and poor man share in these alike.  

But otherwise. . .

If it is immoral for me to take your property and give it to somebody else . . .
If it is immoral for me to pay somebody else to take your property and give it to somebody else. . . .
Then it is immoral for the government to take your property and give it to somebody else.


----------



## Wiseacre (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...




Amen, Foxy.


----------



## thereisnospoon (May 27, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...


Oh but you'll get flamed from those who view not only a great paying job as an entitlement but benefits and a pension as well. 
This comes from the belief that all business owners are wealthy and greedy. That they seek to enrich only themselves. That their highest priority is to use people and keep them down so that the business owner has to share as little of his ill gotten bounty with the employees. 
It's the same old tired song we are subjected to each election cycle.
The people are downtrodden while the business owners are getting richer. Blah blah blah....


----------



## Foxfyre (May 27, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



And there are employers who take wrong advantage of their employees.  That is the price we pay for freedom.   If we do not allow people to do business poorly and/or be assholes, there is no freedom at all.

But those employers who want good, loyal people who will put the employer's interests at the front as well as their own will pay their people as well as they reasonably can and still make a decent profit.  It is to everybody's advantage that the business succeed, prosper, and grow.  It becomes a social contract between employer and employee for the mutual benefit of all.

Those employees who work only for their own benefit are employees who are generally less happy in their work and less valuable to their employers.  But you're right.  There are some who see it as their employer's duty and responsibility to support the employee in grand fashion whether the employee is loyal and valuable or not.


----------



## Immanuel (May 27, 2011)

Rodack said:


> democrats steal trillions and trillions of wealth then get shot in the head like in AZ, still having the audacity to act surprised.....why? why?
> 
> Is anyone really surprised?
> 
> ...



Please tell me you are not defending the attempted murder of Rep. Giffords.  Because it sure seems to be what you are hinting at.  Despite what I feel about politicians and their tax policies, it does not come close to comparing with attempted murder.

Immie


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

I have no problem paying for my share of services. I do have a problem paying for someone to live who is only going to spit out more welfare babies and make the problem worse.  that is not a very progressive idea


----------



## MikeK (May 27, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> I worked until 11 pm last night.
> WHY is someone that has been undisciplined, made wrong choices one after another as habit, sits at home and watches American Idol and is addicted to mooching entitled to any of my earnings?


Are you referring to a specific individual or do you believe everyone who for one reason or other falls below the poverty line has done so by choice with the definable objective of "mooching" from you?  

While there always will be the _ten percent_ who manage to exploit the aid mechanism of our economy do you believe the entire mechanism should be scrapped because of that comparative few?  

One way to look at your having worked 'til 11PM is in view of the current unemployment statistic you are fortunate to have that opportunity.  There are plenty of "moochers" who would eagerly and happily relieve you of the burden.  

Count your blessings, Dawg.  And cast some of your bread upon the waters.  It won't break you.


----------



## MikeK (May 27, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> I have no problem paying for my share of services. I do have a problem paying for someone to live who is only going to spit out more welfare babies and make the problem worse.  that is not a very progressive idea


You've presented a valid complaint but that situation is easily fixed.  

New York City (under Mayor Koch) adopted a policy which denies increase in benefits to women who become pregnant and deliver babies while on public assistance -- but free abortion services are available.  

The result was a dramatic decrease in so-called "welfare babies."


----------



## DiamondDave (May 27, 2011)

MikeK said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I worked until 11 pm last night.
> ...



Cast the bread on your own... it's not the same when someone forcibly restrains you to go into your pantry, uses your arm to grab the bread and throw it in the water

Nobody is owed jack shit in this life...


----------



## Spoonman (May 27, 2011)

MikeK said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem paying for my share of services. I do have a problem paying for someone to live who is only going to spit out more welfare babies and make the problem worse.  that is not a very progressive idea
> ...



i give him a high 5 for that.  now if he could just get them to work


----------



## Nic_Driver (May 27, 2011)

> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?



I am opposed to the movement of our nations capital upward, to those who haven't earned it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 27, 2011)

MikeK said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem paying for my share of services. I do have a problem paying for someone to live who is only going to spit out more welfare babies and make the problem worse.  that is not a very progressive idea
> ...


And an increase in baby killing at tax payers expense.


----------



## Rodack (May 27, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Rodack said:
> 
> 
> > democrats steal trillions and trillions of wealth then get shot in the head like in AZ, still having the audacity to act surprised.....why? why?
> ...





If a thief broke in your home, would you shot him/her?


Thieves get shot



We call that social justice


----------



## Immanuel (May 27, 2011)

Rodack said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Rodack said:
> ...



There is a big difference between self-defense and stalking your victim with the intent to commit murder.

Immie


----------



## The T (Jun 3, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> I have no problem paying for my share of services. I do have a problem paying for someone to live who is only going to spit out more welfare babies and make the problem worse. that is not a very progressive idea


 
Exactly. The Statists have made it too easy for brood mares to scam the system.


----------



## Chris (Jun 3, 2011)

400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined.

The wealth has already been redistributed.


----------



## dblack (Jun 3, 2011)

The T said:


> Exactly. The Statists have made it too easy for brood mares to scam the system.



Brood mares don't hold a candle to lobbyists when it comes to scamming the system. Just sayin'.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2011)

dblack said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. The Statists have made it too easy for brood mares to scam the system.
> ...



Lobbyists aren't all bad though.  The good ones can identify a need for a regulation or sell a truly good product or service.  Many do extensive and excellent research thus saving the Congressperson or other government people from having to do that.

And they can't scam anybody not looking and/or willing to be scammed.

If you think it is immoral for the federal government to do wealth redistribution, as I see that it is immoral, the only way to stop it is to prevent the federal government from using the people's money to pledge or give to any special interest of any kind.  If it doesn't benefit all equally from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, the federal government isn't allowed to do it.

The poor and rich alike benefit from an interstate highway for instance.  But a road built to benefit a single city (constituency) or group (voter bloc) should be prohibited.

And that would put lobbyists for special interest groups out of business.


----------



## Chris (Jun 3, 2011)




----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Neither are 'Brood mares'

And they can't scam anybody not looking and/or willing to be scammed.



> If you think it is immoral for the federal government to do wealth redistribution, as I see that it is immoral, the only way to stop it is to prevent the federal government from using the people's money to pledge or give to any special interest of any kind.  If it doesn't benefit all equally from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, the federal government isn't allowed to do it.
> 
> The poor and rich alike benefit from an interstate highway for instance.  But a road built to benefit a single city (constituency) or group (voter bloc) should be prohibited.
> 
> And that would put lobbyists for special interest groups out of business.



Agreed. I will never be possible to do that perfectly, but it should be the goal. 'Equal protection' needs to be amplified as a constitutional protection. And we need to understand that discriminatory taxation is one of the most insidious forms of this kind of inequality.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 4, 2011)

Chris said:


> 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined.
> 
> The wealth has already been redistributed.



Where do libs get all these bogus economic statistics?


----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2011)

Chris said:


>



The frustrating thing is that the radically increasing wealth disparity is a genuine cause for concern. But those raising the issue are usually using it to justify broader and more intrusive government control over our economy and our lives. But plenty of us out here don't want to simply replace the oppressive power of concentrated wealth with the oppressive power of concentrated government.

There _are_ things we could come to some agreement about that would make the situation better. Dropping all the tax loopholes and incentives is an example of something we could do that would satisfy both camps; It would remove privileges and advantages granted to the wealthy and, at the same time, decrease government intrusion. There are plenty of other changes we could make along these lines, changes that would have a real effect on the problem without radically expanding the scope of government. My question is, why aren't we pursuing them?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 4, 2011)

dblack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


*Possibly because we limit our "choice" in the voting booth to Democrat OR Republican?*

The meme of "tossing out all the bums" (Rs and Ds) has been around for generations.

The Internet makes it doable.

FLUSH hundreds of Republicans AND Democrats from DC in a single news cycle, and the sort of big changes you're talking about become possible.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 4, 2011)

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



For sure nothing in life is going to be 'perfect', but we can shoot for general worthy principles and goals and elimination of as much self serving greed and corruption in government as possible is certainly a worthy goal.  And the principle that it is immoral, corrupting, and produces many unintended negative consequences to take from one citizen for the benefit of another should be embraced by all.

One of the first principles in management is that you can't fix a flawed system by changing people.  Our federal government system of wealth redistribution is so bad that it turns good people into bad people.  It is not only corrupting for those in government but also the recipients of the redistributed wealth.


----------



## The T (Jun 4, 2011)

dblack said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. The Statists have made it too easy for brood mares to scam the system.
> ...


  Maybe true...however you have to understand that they vote with YOUR wallet, and mine...


----------



## The T (Jun 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


 
It is a system that limits Liberty, produces too many hoops to jump through at the whim of Government...quite the inverse of the intent of the Founders...

Simply? It's social engineering that benefits the government and their control over us by LAW.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 4, 2011)

The T said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



More important, it is primarily used to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those setting the policies and allocating the funds.  It provides strong incentive to those receiving or hoping to receive those funds to keep electing those same people to office.   And they will do so at the expense of the best policies for the country as a whole.   Eventually many become so dependent that they no longer even try to become those who contribute rather than just receive.  A sophisticated form of slavery is created.

And that, along with treading on unalienable rights of citizens, is the immorality of government forced redistribution of wealth.

Nobody has yet been able to explain how it is moral for G to forcibly confiscate wealth from The T,  use a large percentage of that wealth to support G, and give the remainder to Foxfyre so that Foxfyre will vote for G to keep doing just that.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


>



I have a slight problem with the math, but according to these charts, the bottom 80% have lost wealth while the top 21% have gained a lot of wealth, the top 1% has gained 150%

Yeah, I know, it adds up to 101%, that's why I have a slight problem with the math.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


No one has "lost wealth"...The chart clearly shows while the two bottom quintiles wages remain steady, those in the upper three have seen wages increase.
So what?.....Is it somehow criminal for people to use their work ethic or education to improve themselves?
I get pretty pissed off when I have to think about people on the class envy train looking cross eyed at me because I did the work necessary to become more well trained and certified in my line of work which helps me to earn more money. Ya know what? Fuck 'em.
I'll do what I want.


----------



## Sallow (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined.
> ...



2 of those Americans have over 100 billion dollars in assets.

Think you can count that high? In your lifetime? In your kid's and your lifetime? In your kid's, yours and their kid's lifetime?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 8, 2011)

Sallow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Why is it you people think that because some have more therefore someone else MUST have less?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

Sallow said:


> 2 of those Americans have over 100 billion dollars in assets.
> 
> Think you can count that high? In your lifetime? In your kid's and your lifetime? In your kid's, yours and their kid's lifetime?



No one in the world has $100 billion in assets, so now we know the figures are entirely bogus.

What difference does it make how high I can count?  What does that have to do with your unlimited envy?


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > 2 of those Americans have over 100 billion dollars in assets.
> ...




Envy has nothing to do with it.

The wealth has already been redistributed to the super rich through tax loopholes and a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivatives Ponzi scheme. 

And all you can say is, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"

Click on the link...

The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Of course you will, because you don't give a damn about anyone but yourself.  That's what's wrong with our country today, greed, and power only in the hands of the wealthy making sure the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  You don't give a crap because you don't work a minimum wage job.  You think you're better than them because you've had better luck.  Trust me, you haven't worked harder at all.

Do you know that in 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history?  That a minimum wage worker could afford his own apartment, to buy a car, and to go to college part time?  I know because that's exactly what my brother did at the time.  He worked his butt off to do it too.  You don't get that same advantage with a minimum wage job today, in fact even those making more than minimum are working 2 jobs to make ends meet and don't have the time or the money for any classes to improve their lives.  

YOU were LUCKY!!!  That's all you have that they don't.  You sure as hell didn't work any harder than they work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Why is it you people think that because some have more therefore someone else MUST have less?



Because the only way a tic sucking on the government tit can get more is to take it from someone else.  A tic on the ass of society cannot comprehend the concept of producing wealth.  They only understand the concept of taking wealth.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



The hardest working people make the least money.

The Mexican farm workers and the people at McDonalds.

This country is totally fucked up. We are running huge deficits because the Republicans won't raise taxes on the rich by 3%.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it you people think that because some have more therefore someone else MUST have less?
> ...



Like corporate welfare???


----------



## elvis (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


obama's a republican, eh dipshit?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Envy has nothing to do with it.
> 
> The wealth has already been redistributed to the super rich through tax loopholes and a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> And all you can say is, "Thank you sir, may I have another!"



You can't redistribute anything unless you have first taken it from someone.  A tax cut doesn't take money from anyone except the tics sucking off the taxpayers.  

If derivatives are a Ponzi scheme, then the people who have invested in them will soon be without their money.  You're envy problem will be solved.



Chris said:


> The Richest People in America 2010 - Forbes.com




Note:  the richest person on the list hast $54 billion - not even close to $100 billion.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it you people think that because some have more therefore someone else MUST have less?
> ...



A tic like Big Oil?

A tic like Wall Street bankers?

A tic like every other blood sucking lobbyist in Washington?

How do they "produce wealth?" By stealing HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR DERIVATIVE SCHEME???


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Tax loopholes.. like those things that have ~50% of the populace paying no income tax at all???


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Yes, corporate welfare is sucking off the taxpayers.  I'm all for ending ethanol subsidies, Davis Bacon rules, tariffs, agricultural subsidies, yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Envy has nothing to do with it.
> ...



Horse shit.

The top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year running the Ponzi scheme. They skimmed it off the top of THE SAVINGS OF HARD WORKING AMERICANS.  And then, the Ponzi scheme ran out, the government GAVE THEM BACK THE MONEY THAT THEY STOLE AND NO ONE WENT TO JAIL!!!


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Bingo.

And retired military getting a government check every month for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You don't think the retired military should get their retirement pay??????


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



its about risk and rewards.  burn a burger no big deal.  you won't even get fired over it.  make a poor investment and you could lose millions of your own money.  that's how the game is played.  you're free to choose which player you want to aspire to be


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Horse shit.
> 
> The top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year running the Ponzi scheme. They skimmed it off the top of THE SAVINGS OF HARD WORKING AMERICANS.  And then, the Ponzi scheme ran out, the government GAVE THEM BACK THE MONEY THAT THEY STOLE AND NO ONE WENT TO JAIL!!!



You'll have to be clear about who was given what.  You have to have a minimum of $100,000 to invest in a hedge fund, so no "working Americans," as you refer to losers, were ripped off by investing in hedge funds.  The federal government did not give any money to any hedge funds.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I think a government check is a government check.

My father fought in WW II and never got a penny from the government.

What I believe is that our taxes are too low to support the military empire we are trying to run. So we have to either abandon our empire or raise taxes. 

There is PLENTY OF WEALTH in this country. It is just concentrated in the hands of a very few people.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Horse shit.
> ...



Oh, please, listen to yourself. You are defending the people that DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY.


----------



## Chris (Jun 8, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Here's how the game is played...

Hire a lobbyist to BUY INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON.

Get the Republicans to lower your taxes and allow your industry to rape and pillage the average citizen.

Repeat as necessary...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Oh, please, listen to yourself. You are defending the people that DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY.



Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of the sub-prime Democrats sent the economy into a tail spin, and Obama drove it into the ground. 

Hedge fund managers had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



What a bunch of bull.  Nobody CHOOSES to work at McDonald's.  They HAVE to in order to make ends meet.  YOU were LUCKY.  Count your blessing and quit being so greedy.  Start working so that others can have the same opportunities you did.  That means, stop worrying about getting a tax break and start worrying about raising the minimum wage to a living wage.  Let others have the same chance to become wealthy as you did.  You are a hypocrite if you think that everyone has money to invest.  Most of the people on foodstamps are the working poor, talk about shameful.  We're the richest country in the world and many in our own military who put their lives on the line for us have to get foodstamps so they can feed their children.  You aren't worth their sacrifice because you are so greedy you don't think they deserve any better.  Meanwhile, you lord it over the working class and sit on your investments and cry that you don't deserve to pay taxes.  Good grief, talk about class warfare.  You want to make sure that the poor never have a chance to be better.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Here's how the game is played...
> 
> Hire a lobbyist to BUY INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON.
> 
> ...



What industry is "raping and pillaging the average American?"

The federal government is raping us and pillaging us to the tune of over $4 trillion a year.


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



obama had the oportunity to repeal the tax breaks, did he? 

obama had a chance to repeal the patriot act, did he? 

obama promised to rid washington of lobbyists, did he?  no he embraced them to help promote obama care as he sold out to them.

come on chris.  you're liberal bullshit spin is long overplayed and pointless. 

Obama is everything you say you hate.  take off the friggin blinders already


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 8, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



yep, only these class warfare liberal assholes. Want the rich to take all the risk, but when their investments pay off and they get even richer. Well then they want to be able to say hey you don't need that much money lets take most of it and give it to the poor.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



More bull.  Paying the working people a living wage is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  It's paying the working people what they EARN!!!!!  Instead of the rich making all their money off of the poor and then letting our tax dollars buy food for their workers, they should pay for their own workers.  Stop subsidizing the rich.  That's what we're doing when we provide welfare for their workers because they are too greedy to share their profits with them.  The Walmart family is a big example of the greedy making their money off of the poor and the taxpayer picking up the bill by providing welfare for their employees.  This is nothing more than institutionalized slavery.  

And our government, both the dems and the reps have made it possible with the influx of immigrants without which the rich would be forced to pay more as there wouldn't be enough workers.  Remember Americans limit their children to less than replacement value, if we didn't take in more immigrants legally than all the other countries combined, our employers would HAVE to pay the workers more as they'd be more in demand.

No one envisioned that the average workers would be worse off today than in the 60's.  They all thought we'd be like the Jetson's by now, with 3 day work weeks.  Instead our government, owned by the corporations have made sure that we have institutionalized slavery and the rich can cry foul all they want but they have stolen our countries wealth.  They've made their money off the sweat of the poor workers and they refuse to share the profits.  Labor is a much smaller percentage of the budget today than it was in the 60's.  Only greed can cause the greatest country in the world to go backwards and become a 3rd world country. 

I am ashamed of those that claim that the rich "deserve" their 150% increase and the workers deserve their decline in wealth.


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



you know what I started out with?  zip.  I could't afford to go to a good school. I had no one footing my bill. My parents worked hard and pushed my ass always. but they made ends meet and managed to save a little.   I busted my as in school an got a scholarship, paid the rest on my own.  When I graduated college I had $3500 in the bank, saved from working jobs like flipping burgers, cutting lawns and stocking warehouses while in school.  And then i worked, then I took some risks. And I worked harder and started to move up.  I had nothing handed to me.   I'm not super rich. I'm very well off, but I'm not a player.  But I worked for it. took chances but was smart about them.  you've got to follow the leads. A perfect example. AIG. they were floating a little above $7 a share and risking bankruptcy. But obama was willing ot toss a ton of money at them. The government wasn't going to let them fail. You've got a sure bet there.  that's taking a smart chance.  Phillip morris, rumored dead in the water by massive lawsuits in the clinton years. Waxman all over their ass. stock dropped from the upper $80's to like $17. no one would touch it. I bought a ton.  Why? becasue the government had just signed a master stettlement agreement with them and was poised to make more on a pack of smokes than there were.  I bought a ton of stock, i bought a ton of options. huge risk, but I made a ton of money. 

I had nothing any other burger flipper didn't have, except drive and the willingness to go for it.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



And a higher spending power for your minimum wage.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Not to mention more affordable college tuition, a better economy with more job opportunities.  An economy where our jobs were here, not overseas and we actually had ladders that you could climb, not rungs missing due to jobs being sent overseas.


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



The ladders are still there. you are totally missing the point.  Companies recruit out of colleges. Many big companies have a policy that part of managments bonus is based on how well they recruit and how well they move people they recruit through the organization. White collar jobs are not outsourced   techical jobs are still there, they are different.  we are in a faster paced environment. They can't find enough computer techs, nurses, healthworkers. engineers, electical technitions.  Factory work is gone. Union wages out priced them to the point they weren't competitive in a global market. But there are plenty of manufacturing jobs. now they are just technical and require training. becasue people are running high tech equipment. Solar installers are going to be in huge demand over the next 10 years.  who is making themselves capable to fill those positions?


----------



## snjmom (Jun 8, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, please, listen to yourself. You are defending the people that DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY.
> ...



This is a bat-shit crazy statement.

The market didn't freeze up because of a few sub-prime foreclosures. It froze because no one could trust the other players. And that shit falls squarely on the financial sector. As for needing 100,000 to play, institutional investors are the largest investors in hedge funds. You know pension funds, school endowments, charitable foundations. Yep, never touched the common man, did they?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



No, you are missing the point.  You went to college at a time when you could make enough on minimum wage with ONE job and still go to college.  You were able to better yourself that way.  That opportunity is no longer available to most minimum wage workers in this economy and hasn't been for many years.  Minimum wage just doesn't have the spending power it did when you were working your way up the ladder.  Plus the ladders are missing rungs.  Our jobs have been sent overseas.  Even my nephew, who went to MIT on a scholarship and had much help from his parents ended up going back to school to become a lawyer because HIS jobs was done away with in today's economy.  A job that required a degree from MIT.  A job working for INTEL.  You must be nuts if you think today people have the same opportunity that you did and that they can work to better themselves, it's just not available to most workers.  

We have lawyers telling corporations how to word job descriptions so they can bring in people from overseas and no American will qualify for that job.  You don't give a damn about those who've had college educations and lost their jobs to immigrants brought in from overseas because the corporations can get away with paying them less.  You don't give a damn about the minimum wage worker working two jobs just to feed himself.  You just lord it over all those you think you are better than because you believe (erroneously) that you worked "harder" than them and deserve your riches while they deserve to be poor and hungry.

Times are not like they were then, even you admit that, yet you think you are better than them and deserve more than them because you were lucky and lived in a time when jobs were plentiful and when you could work your way through college and better yourself.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 9, 2011)

snjmom said:


> This is a bat-shit crazy statement.
> 
> The market didn't freeze up because of a few sub-prime foreclosures. It froze because no one could trust the other players. And that shit falls squarely on the financial sector. As for needing 100,000 to play, institutional investors are the largest investors in hedge funds. You know pension funds, school endowments, charitable foundations. Yep, never touched the common man, did they?



"A few sub-prime foreclosures?"  Only a small percentage of the sub-prime mortgages were foreclosed on. Fanny Mae and Freddie Max were each bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  The hedge funds went into the tank because they bought derivatives that were based on bundles of mortgages, many of which were sub-prime and not worth the paper they were printed on.

The blood sucking tics are all trying to point the finger at anything other than their giant milch cow with 50 million teats, but no one is fooled.


----------



## snjmom (Jun 9, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



And fucking luck. Two parents. With savings. Good health and mental capacity. Housing. And lucked out on the investments.

Not everyone has that kind of luck.


----------



## snjmom (Jun 9, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > This is a bat-shit crazy statement.
> ...





> Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
> 
> During those same explosive three years, private investment banks  not Fannie and Freddie  dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
> 
> ...



The FM's exposure was due to purchasing those same privately originated MBS's. The funds were screaming for more, the banks and mortgage lenders couldn't put them together fast enough.

While there is plenty of blame to pass around, the failure of the government lies in allowing the wild west casino to keep playing. I blame Greenspan and his "market will regulate itself" fantasies.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > This is a bat-shit crazy statement.
> ...



Only 6% of mortgages were in default when the market collapsed.

The market collapsed because Wall Street was running a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme. Just to give you an idea of how big a scam that was, the GDP of all the countries in the world in one year is $50 trillion dollars. The only one that warned about what was about to happen was Warren Buffett. You can read about it at this link...

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 9, 2011)

The CRA in the Carter Administration was well intended and had some pretty good rules and did help a lot of folks get into their first hmes with minimal down payments.  But those folks also had to have a decent credit rating and a steady source of income to qualify for those entry loans.  So the defaults were only slightly higher than with people taking out conventional loans.

But over time, politicians started using the CRA like all the rest of the government to buy votes and increase their own power, influence, and personal fortunes.  Groups like ACORN got into the act and, by backing influencial politicians such as our President, wielded great power through influence in Washington.  They started forcing the financial institutions to relax rules about credit ratings and reduce down payments even more.

Also:



> A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America." He once boasted to the New York Times that he had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city &#8212; Boston.
> 
> Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.
> 
> ...



When you force financial institutions to make loans to people with poor track records for managing money, who don't pay their debts if they don't feel like it, you're going to start having more defaults.   When the economy is good it works because there are plenty of good loans to offset the bad ones.  But when the economy is bad, people who have no credit rating to protect and little or no investment in their homes just stop paying for those homes.   And when the number of bad loans has been hugely and artificially inflated, then the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

The ones to blame are those who put this kind of system into effect and who went before the cameras almost every day to defend the solvency of Freddie and Fannie when the Bush Administration first started sounding the alarm years ahead of the 2008 crash.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Really? How? PLease explain using facts. No blogosphere opinions allowed.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

snjmom said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Ahh yes..You libs view those who have accomplished anything as having won the lottery of life.
You lefties will do anything to avoid discussing the concepts of hard work, education and personal responsibility.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


I have seen whining on this subject, but this post really takes the cake.
Shut the fuck up....
Your nephew has a degree from MIT that was paid for by scholarship money and you have the gall to complain?!!!!! That kid has more opportunities than he will ever realize.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Luck has nothing to do with it, genius.
I started working as a junior in high school. So don't fucking tell me about luck greed or anything else. And please spare me the horse shit story about min wage workers in 1968. 
You're just another self indulged whiner who thinks the world owes them something.
Luck......Oh sure.....
Your post is this.....WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


The more you repeat your nonsense, the more people will yawn at you.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Oh I get it...Those 50,000 people Mickey D's hired two months ago were not there of their own volition. Those people were summoned there by the corporate authority and told they MUST work at Mc Donalds or ELSE....No one made the conscious choice to take the job....
Umm, increasing the minimum wage always results in the loss of jobs.
There is no such thing as a living wage because each individual has their own idea of a proper or desired lifestyle for them.
Living wage. HA!!!! That's a socialist worker's party angle to use the force of government to mandate massive wage increases. Essentially this creates nationalization of all private business. Well, fuck that.
You talk about low pay for soldiers. I agree. Yet your side continually attacks defense spending. HUH?!!!!
Can't have it both ways.
Persoanlly, I think military wages should be doubled. That money can be taken from some wasteful social program. Deal?


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier's window at a racetrack or casino, where you'd place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy. 

To grasp how significant this five-fold bubble increase is, let's put that $516 trillion in the context of some other domestic and international monetary data: 

U.S. annual gross domestic product is about $15 trillion 

U.S. money supply is also about $15 trillion 

Current proposed U.S. federal budget is $3 trillion

U.S. government's maximum legal debt is $9 trillion 

U.S. mutual fund companies manage about $12 trillion 

World's GDPs for all nations is approximately $50 trillion 

Unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits $50 trillion to $65 trillion 

Total value of the world's real estate is estimated at about $75 trillion 

Total value of world's stock and bond markets is more than $100 trillion 

BIS valuation of world's derivatives back in 2002 was about $100 trillion 

BIS 2007 valuation of the world's derivatives is now a whopping $516 trillion 

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> Envy has nothing to do with it.



Envy has everything to do with it - it's all you have.



> The wealth has already been redistributed to the super rich through tax loopholes and a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivatives Ponzi scheme.



Another moron leftist who thinks there is a static pile of wealth that is divied up.

You toss out the standard lie, right? You claim that the poor have gotten poorer - can we test your lie?


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Yes, I could afford the $35,000 tuition on my $1.65 minimum wage.  Where do you dig up these facts from?  Want to go to college today on a minimum wage, go to any one of the excellent state schools for $2000 a sememster.  Minimum wage didn't go any further then than it does today.   And you seem mighty bitter that you never pulled yourself above where you are currently at.  I could have stayed working at rickels, I could have continued to cut lawns, I could have stayed at any one of the numerous wage work positions I had. But I didn't. I got an education.  I interviewed for jobs and started at the bottom like anyone else. I looked for opportunities and took them when I saw them.  I lost 3 jobs due to companies either relocating or being bought out or simply went under.  Do you really think this is a new phenomena?  My father lost two jobs due to mergers or phase outs. and this was in the 50's and 60's. Stuff like this has always happened.   And you know what mortgage rates were back in my easy days? 18%   try managing a mortgage at 4 x the interest rate.  You are totally off the wall with this.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 9, 2011)

Spoonman said:


> Yes, I could afford the $35,000 tuition on my $1.65 minimum wage.  Where do you dig up these facts from?  Want to go to college today on a minimum wage, go to any one of the excellent state schools for $2000 a sememster.  Minimum wage didn't go any further then than it does today.



I rarely disagree with you Spoon, but this time I have to.

Minimum wage today goes VASTLY further than the $1.65 did yesteryear. Compare the number of hours worked to buy a loaf of bread, a car, a TV, or a house. Across the board, it takes less hours today than it did in 1970.

The poor have gotten WAY richer.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Yeah, he did.  He was LUCKY!!!!!!!~!!!!!!

Recognize that.  Most don't have those same opportunities.  I just admitted that.  I also pointed out that his job at Intel no longer exists.  His education at MIT was WORTHLESS.  He was smart enough to go back to school and get a degree in law so that he would have a job.  

hard work isn't enough.  Education isn't enough.  Luck is a big part of it.  My nephew, even with his scholarship could not have gone to MIT if his parents didn't poney up $40,000 a year.  How many people can do that today?  

I had a friend that got a scholarship to Harvard and still couldn't go.  (makes me wonder how Obama did it)  And that was when college was cheaper and the minimum wage had more spending power.

I'm not a lib, I'm a mod and I see you as the greedy sob you are.  We need to go back to a time when our income gap was smaller and the average CEO only made about 57 times what his workers made instead of more than 500 times what they make.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I could afford the $35,000 tuition on my $1.65 minimum wage.  Where do you dig up these facts from?  Want to go to college today on a minimum wage, go to any one of the excellent state schools for $2000 a sememster.  Minimum wage didn't go any further then than it does today.
> ...



You must be joking.  MW is what?  Less than $8 an hour federal?  Bread is at least $2.00.  A car, minimum $15,000, an apartment around here, $700 minimum.  More than one bedroom much more.  Rent a house, we are talking 1500 cheapest, most are $2500 a month.  

Heck our gas/electric bill for last month was almost $600.  Yeah, sure minimum wage has more spending power today.....NOT!!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



What's your point?  That MW should be what, $30/hr?  Yeah, that'll really induce the already terminally lazy to be real go-getters.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



MW workers are not lazy.  They are the hardest workers in our society.  You try flipping burgers on your feet all day.  You try taking care of the elderly in a nursing home all day.  You try doing dishes in a restaurant all day and come back and tell me how easy it is and how lazy those people are.  Good grief, does your brain even work????

I can only surmise that you are a wealthy brat who never worked a real job in his/her life.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> You must be joking.



Why would I joke?

The minimum wage was $1.60 in 1970. How much was a loaf of bread? Cheap white was $.25.  

The represents 9.4 minutes of work

Food Groceries and Toiletries in the 1970's prices 60 examples from The People History Site

Minimum wage now is $7.25. A loaf of cheap white bread is $.89

This represents 7.4 minutes of work.

Walmart.com: Nickles: Enriched White Bread, 20 Oz: Bakery & Bread



> A car, minimum $15,000



Cars are the most fun.

Let's take the 1970 Ford Pinto, a cheap car to be sure.

list price, $2,162

1351.25 hours of work, she's all yours.

Today, a Hyundai Accent has a list of $9,794

1338.62 hours and you own it.

Okay, this isn't really fair - the Accent has air conditioning, power breaks and steering, AM/FM/CD/MP3

The Pinto had --- tires...

How about a color TV set? Stereo?  - Electronics not fair?



> an apartment around here, $700 minimum.



What about a house? Couldn't readily find 1970, this is from 1974 - $34,900

What Happened in 1974 including Pop Culture, Prices, Events and Technology

That represents a staggering 24625 hours of labor at the 1974 minimum wage of $1.65 per hour.

Today a house will run you $177,900

Still staggering, but 24537 is still less labor.

Average Cost of Homes in U.S. - Average House Prices, 2009 to 2010


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Only a lazy person looks upon the accomplishments of others and calls it "lucky".
An MIT degree worthless?...You must be one angry entitled grumpy fuck.
Opportunity is what one does. Opportunities are earned, not given.
As parents, it was their obligation to assist their child with his educational opportunity. Because of his above average intelligence, he earned that opportunity.
So who in your opinion should regulate your so called income gap? The federal government? Oh goody. Another out of control, unaccountable bureaucracy....
Go back to the drawing board, Mr greedy....You're a lib
Moderates...The weakest link in the chain. Moderates. Those who wait to see what the popular opinion on an issue is then agree with that. Moderates. The people with no compass of their own. No core beliefs. Moderates. The people most likely to compromise even if it goes against everything they believed in the day before.
Each of us is an individual. That means we are not equal. Some of us are able to reach higher levels. Most are not. In your world those who reach the height of their potential should be punished for being "lucky"....Shit.
Go cram your socialist bullshit where the sun don't shine....The only thing we are entitled to is the freedom to make choices. After that, it is up to each one if us to achieve to the best of our ability.
Try thinking outside the little box...For once.
Quit whining and do something about your situation.
One last thing. No one owes anyone anything. If you want to achieve something, work for it.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Or steal it like the hedge fund managers?


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.

We have the greatest disparity of wealth in the industrialized world.

It is an enormous waste of resources and it is morally wrong.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> 4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.
> 
> We have the greatest disparity of wealth in the industrialized world.
> 
> It is an enormous waste of resources and it is morally wrong.


You and others continue to whine about this so called wealth gap....Not one of you has come up with an idea to reverse this alleged phenomenon.
What say you?....As to a solution only.
Note...The answer must be in your own words. No C&P opinion pieces. No blogs. YOU OWN WORDS.
Have at it.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > 4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.
> ...



Oh for God's sake...

Return the tax rates to what they were during the Clinton years.

Eight years of peace and prosperity...

Re-establish the firewalls which existed on Wall Street before deregulation.

Outlaw derivatives trading.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > You must be joking.
> ...



from your own link:

Average Price Data, 2006 - 2009

Here are some historical figures from the Census Bureau, showing the average sale price of homes sold in the U.S.

    * 2006 - $305,900
    * 2007 - $313,600
    * 2008 - $292,600
    * 2009 - Not yet available

Quite a bit more than the 177,000 you are claiming, isn't it?  FYI?  "median" is not "average".

Plus, you haven't taken into account the fact that jobs are scarce and those that are available are being taken by immigrants, both legal and illegal, leaving the average American highschool graduate without a job or opportunity.


As for your Hyundai "Accent"....most "American's" can't fit into them.  I sure as heck can't and I'm only 5'10.

What did you do?  Read that book, "How to lie with statistics?"

As my dad  used to say, "There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.


----------



## snjmom (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



So, you've never known anyone that worked hard, tried to educate themselves and believed in personal responsibility that still couldn't get ahead? I believe in hard work, education and personal responsibility, it's just that sometimes that isn't enough. Sometimes I look around me and come to the conclusion that taking credit for others hard work, connections and a complete lack of ethics and the willingness to stab anyone in the back are the real road to success.

I've worked since I was 8 yrs old. I'll probably work till I die. I'm not complaining about my position in this world. But I also think it is awfully mean-spirited and uncivilized to kick the poor to the curb and demand that everyone else in this world have it as hard as (proverbial) you did. 

And any realistic assessment of anyone's success should include lucky breaks. Being prepared to take advantage of them is on you. Getting them isn't.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Raising taxes will do what?
Umm. Prosperity? Yes. Because the federal government ( Clinton) stayed the hell out of the way and let the economy grow on it's own.
You may now look to the federal government for all that ails the economy. They make the rules. They set the regulations. Obama has a rare opportunity to allow the economy to fix itself. He cannot allow that. Obama believes the private sector to be unfair, profit evil.
He's wrong, but Obama' agenda is to destroy the private sector.
I find it amusing that the first response you libs give when asked it "increase taxes"..
Next time I ask a question, try answering it. 
You complained about a wealth gap. I asked you to produce a solution to that. I see nothing in your response remotely addressing the wealth gap issue.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, return taxes to pre 1970 levels.  Of course, you'll just ignore those suggestions as if they never happened and complain that "liberals" don't come up with any solutions.  FYI, I'm a moderate.  There are times "liberals" call me a conservative just as now you're calling me a liberal.  I'm so sick of people trying to peg anyone that doesn't have their viewpoint as someone the complete opposite of them.  FYI, you conservatives are just as bad for this country as the liberals.  Democrats and Republicans are the two most corrupt parties in the history of this nation.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > 4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.
> ...



My own words:  RAISE minimum wage to a living wage.  Return taxes to pre 1970's levels.  Return corporate laws to what they were pre-1970's also.


----------



## Polk (Jun 9, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



False. Louisiana gets back almost two dollars in spending for every dollar it contributes.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

snjmom said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > snjmom said:
> ...


There is no try..There is only "do"....
Get ahead? No...This is an illusion created by the class envy crowd.
MY parent's generation never thought about "getting ahead" They thought about doing what they could to make a living, make a home, raise a family, have a few nice things, educate their kids and retire. Notice how all those things involve personal responsibility.
"I look around me".....another problem you libs have. You're always so worried about what someone else is doing. It has no affect on you. Mind your business and worry about what you need to do. I could not care less about what others do. It is of no consequence to me. Suppose I get all worked up about someone in my neighborhood who used some unethical advantage to get what he wanted. I get all pissed off and that has a negative effect on me. The neighbor doesn't give a shit. So I get all stressed out and I'm still not any better for it.
Let the authorities take care of it. There's nothing I can do but sleep well at night knowing I did things the correct way. Legitimate.
Not once did I "kick the poor to the curb"....I don't even recall thinking that.
In fact I'll dismiss that as an invective on your part.
I'll go back to the statement I made earlier. That was , I get pretty sick of people giving me the cross eye because I did what I had to do to become educated and certified in my profession so that I could increase my value to my employer and so they would pay me based on that value and contribution. If certain people think I'm greedy or evil, fuck 'em.
In the immortal words of Judge Elihu Smails......"I OWE YOU NOTHING!"


----------



## Polk (Jun 9, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I could afford the $35,000 tuition on my $1.65 minimum wage.  Where do you dig up these facts from?  Want to go to college today on a minimum wage, go to any one of the excellent state schools for $2000 a sememster.  Minimum wage didn't go any further then than it does today.
> ...



That's just absolutely false. The minimum wage today is about 25 percent less in real terms than it was in the 1960s.


----------



## rdean (Jun 9, 2011)

Money has already be redistributed from the Middle Class to the top 3%.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


"living wage" What's that?
We compete in our world. So when we take responsibility for ourselves, become educated, choose a field and become more skilled, we in effect give ourselves a raise. No government mandate will crate the panacea of prosperity.
'Remember this. If government mandates all people of any skill level be given an automatic increase in wage, the money has to come from somewhere. The wage mandate will be passed along to the end user of the product or service. Prices will have to increased to make up the rise in mandated labor costs. That two dollar loaf of bread will become a five dollar loaf of bread.
Taxes. Increasing taxes does the same thing. The additional expense incurred by business and individuals will be passed along to the consumer. 
No authority can artificially increase expenses and not incur consequences.
What pre 1970's laws were those?
BTW, should government increase taxes to past confiscatory levels, where would the the incentive be to invest and build if those with the means to do so now the government would simply confiscate the profits?
Why is it you think wealth is safer in the hands of politicians who have shown ZERO fiscal responsibility in the first place? 
You seem to believe that taxation is the great equalizer.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> snjmom said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Yeah, let's not get upset about the ever increasing income gap.  Let's just let them keep on kicking the poor until they starve....let's just let them continue raping this country until there is nothing left and the rest of us starve while the rich horde everything.  No worries...if we die of starvation or overwork, we deserve it. 

I'm ashamed of American and some Americans.  It's way past time for the new revolution.  It'll never happen though, the government proved that when they took those guns away from their legal owners after Katrina and Americans did nothing.  Yep, we probably deserve to die of starvation and overwork seeing as how we won't do anything to prevent it.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 9, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Yeah, the money comes from that 150% increase the top 21% made while the rest of us lost money.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


You "lost" money? Explain.....Where did YOUR money, the money for which YOU are responsible?
Your comments make no sense.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2011)

rdean said:


> Money has already be redistributed from the Middle Class to the top 3%.



Exactly.

And all these rank and file Republicans are like the frat boys in Animal House.

"Thank you sir, may I have another!"


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Money has already be redistributed from the Middle Class to the top 3%.
> ...


All of you class envy people are self loathing whiners.
Look pal, you're either inside or your outside.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 9, 2011)

rdean said:


> Money has already be redistributed from the Middle Class to the top 3%.



Keeping a higher % of what YOU earn is redistribution?? Especially when you already pay a much higher % than the rest of the populace?

Warped mind you have there, rdummy


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


I think that says a lot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> 4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.



BWAHAHAHA

Good god but your fuckers are stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Quite a bit more than the 177,000 you are claiming, isn't it?  FYI?  "median" is not "average".



{Mean, median, and mode are three kinds of "averages". There are many "averages" in statistics, but these are, I think, the three most common, and are certainly the three you are most likely to encounter in your pre-statistics courses, if the topic comes up at all.

The "mean" is the "average" you're used to, where you add up all the numbers and then divide by the number of numbers. The "median" is the "middle" value in the list of numbers. To find the median, your numbers have to be listed in numerical order, so you may have to rewrite your list first. The "mode" is the value that occurs most often. If no number is repeated, then there is no mode for the list.}

Mean, Median, Mode, and Range

Try again, sparky...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2011)

AgainSheila:



> Raise the minimum wage to a living wage, return taxes to pre 1970 levels. Of course, you'll just ignore those suggestions as if they never happened and complain that "liberals" don't come up with any solutions. FYI, I'm a moderate. There are times "liberals" call me a conservative just as now you're calling me a liberal. I'm so sick of people trying to peg anyone that doesn't have their viewpoint as someone the complete opposite of them. FYI, you conservatives are just as bad for this country as the liberals. Democrats and Republicans are the two most corrupt parties in the history of this nation.



I'm quite certain that the wage gap will never be solved by "a living wage". In fact the very concept of a "living wage" is to make someone comfortable in a hellish job that is constantly threatened by automation or exportation. It's FAR more humane to look at those minimum workers and do some competent "career counseling". I look at the being under the burger hat and see a future chemical engineer or a lawyer. Leftists see only victims.. PERHAPS, we should require that minimum wage ONLY applies to people somehow enrolled in continuing education (with exceptions for retired or truly handicapped workers). That way if an employer want to EXPLOIT a butt-pickerupper at minimum wage, they MIGHT have to subsidize a trade school or GED instead. 

That, AgainSheila, is more compassionate than simply "promoting the job".. Promote the PERSON!


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> AgainSheila:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More than 75% of those working mw jobs are adults.  You have to recognize that there were always be mw workers.  If we pay them more, they can take college classes and work their way up.  Keep them at starvation wages, as you want and they will never be able to climb the ladder, plus, we tax payers end up subsidizing their employers with earned income and foodstamps.

Do you really think these employers are going to pay for trade school when they won't even pay a living wage?  How exactly are you going to get them to do that?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > AgainSheila:
> ...


75% of all min wage workers are adults huh?
Well sunshine, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that is not true.
Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2009
Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, nearly 19 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. (See table 1 and table 7.)
As a matter of fact those aged 25 and older make up just 3.2% of min wage workers.
If you want to stand in the middle of the room and scream that you are right, at least make sure you can back up your claims.....


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > AgainSheila:
> ...


"If we pay them more"....Are you a business owner? Yes? Then lead the way and pay them your precious living wage. I understand that one pro labor group estimated the living wage in Los Angeles to be $34 per hour.
If you don't own a business, then you get to shut up.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > AgainSheila:
> ...



Thanks to "Thereisnospoon" for pointing out the actual demographics of the minimum wage worker.  AgainSheila, where is your compassion? These are mind-numbing jobs with (for the most part) no future. What a living wage does is to make folks comfortable in really crappy employment. It actually promotes the JOB, not the person. The goal should NOT be overpricing labor at the butt-pickerupper level (and therefore overpricing ALL labor), but to set a path for these folks to continue education and training WHILE they work. A large percentage of these folks ARE students (or semi-retired) and they ALL should training for a career. You get employers to DO THIS because if they don't subsidize the UNTRAINED entry level worker -- they've got nobody to hire except OVER-Qualified applicants that they can attract at HIGHER wages. And the PR benefits of a clever training program can pay for themselves.. Makes them look like angels.. 

Your other prescription was to return taxes to 1970 levels. Shouldn't be neccessary to do that. If you look at Fed tax revenue as a percent of GDP, it's been surprisingly flat since the 60's or so at around 18%. Linking revenues to GDP is the same rationale as COLA. The govt SHOULD be able consume less than 20% of EVERYTHING that gets produced in this country. I'd be glad to give the left the Bush Tax Cuts back. Largely because that would be the equivalent right now of really bad chemotherapy for the economic system. And THEN -- Pelosi-Reid, et al would have nothing left to suggest. They'd become irrelevent once their one solution is fielded and tested.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> More than 75% of those working mw jobs are adults.



Doubtful.

I'll bet less than 10% are adults legally working in the USA.

No one stays at minimum.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > More than 75% of those working mw jobs are adults.
> ...





> According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the median annual income of a U.S. worker is $32,140. Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85 an hour, or about $11,500 per year  just above the poverty line.
> 
> Of the 76.5 million people paid by the hour in the United States in 2006, 2.2% make minimum wage or less. Here are some generalizations we can make about minimum wage workers:
> 
> ...



The problem is that many employers have such narrow profit margins they must be able to get their money's worth out of even minimum wage employees.  The higher the minimum wage goes, the less ability they have to hire a green kid as an intern and give him a chance to develop a work ethic and references and learn marketble skills.  I worked a lot of hours at less than $1/hour as a kid so by the time I was ready to support myself, I was ready and able to do that.  Those same employers who hired me and gave me a chance to learn back then would be prohibited by law from doing so now.

And I think that is one of the reasons we have so many street kids now that grow up unqualified to do much of anything legal and quickly become among the hard core unemployed.

Labor is a commodity as much as anything else and when wages are artificially manipulated you almost always wind up with unintended negative consequences.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



My friend has an associate's degree.  She's been working as a maid most of her life.  Why?  She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people.  Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not.  Where is YOUR compassion?  Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage?  I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?

Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.


----------



## Polk (Jun 10, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Money has already be redistributed from the Middle Class to the top 3%.
> ...



They pay a much higher percentage because they earn a much higher percentage.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


What would you like us to do?
Her employer is responsible for her wage. He or she can only charge so much for his/her services. The employer has two options. He/she can raise rates so that the employee can e paid more. The downfall of which is the customer can determine the rates to be more than they wish to pay and then go to a other service, in which case your friend would make ZERO.
Or the employer gives the worker more money and hence the business does not turn a profit and goes out of business....In that case both the worker AND the business owner have ZERO income....
Contrary to liberal popular belief, business owners do not possess some kind of magic pot of money from which they can freely withdraw money at will.
Now, what say you?


----------



## Polk (Jun 10, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Quite a bit more than the 177,000 you are claiming, isn't it?  FYI?  "median" is not "average".
> ...



To call the median of a set the average is really faulty understanding of statistics, but it is the more relevant data point in this case.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



There are many forms of compassion and one form of compassion is to let the free market work and trust that most people will spend their own money more efficiently and effectively than the government will spend it on their behalf.  And the more prosperous the free market is, the more prosperous the people will be.

It is not compassion to pay people who are not worth more than minimum wage a higher wage.  It is compassion to help people qualify for and be competent in jobs that are worth more than minimum wage.

Because Hombre was transferred so much the first years of our marriage, he was moving up the corporate ladder with each move.  As he was the primary bread winner of the family that was okay with me, but I had to pretty much start over with each move.  And as often or not, I started out at minimum wage or very low wages with each new entry level position.  But because I am good at what I do, I never stayed at the entry level wage for long.  And I got a lot of raises because my employer knew that if he didn't pay me adequately, somebody else would.  But I never had an employer pay me more than I was worth.

I think that is the story with the huge lion's share of all those who have a work ethic and marketable skills.   Most people earning minimum wage year in and year out are not capable of making themselves worth more than minimum wage.  Or are unwilling.

As for those who can't qualify for more than minimum wage jobs through no fault of their own, such as your friend, it is not compassion to hurt the larger economy to accommodate a very few and perhaps destroy jobs for many.  But there is nothing stopping those who have compassion for them to contribute from their own pockets to help out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2011)

AgainSheila:



> My friend has an associate's degree. She's been working as a maid most of her life. Why? She has tourette's syndrome and no one wants to hire her to work around people. Many people working mw jobs will never be able to find better jobs, education or not. Where is YOUR compassion? Do you really believe my friends who's worked hard all her life, doesn't deserve a living wage? I suppose you'd be happier if she went on disability and lived off our taxes?
> 
> Yeah fed taxes have been level because the middle class are paying MORE taxes while the wealthy are paying much much less in taxes, as are corporations.



I'm not a counselor, but you're friend is covered by the ADA. Any employer who can't accomodate her disability may be risking Fed charges. Bigger question is -- what is the AA degree in? Was there ever a plan to have a different career? I don't believe your statement that *MANY* people working at mw will never find better jobs. Technically, no one actually stays at min wage for long, but it DOES determine the trajectory of their compensation for a long time. It's a small fraction of people who start at mw that have disabilities that prevent their advancement. Because MOST handicaps are demonstratably surmountable. And we SHOULD be talking about welfare in those cases. That's no reason to propose a living wage bump to the BOTTOM of the wage scale that would start an undeniable spiral of wages for EVERY SINGLE WORKER in this country.. Absurd.. *If* the country is gonna have a MINIMUM wage (never mind an ambitious LIVING wage), at least Congress should do it's duty and NOT make it a perennial political prank and MANAGE it correctly. Indexed to COLA and region. 
I cannot expect that they can manage a bake sale.. 

Corporations eh? Like G.E.? Did you know that G.E. gets up to $100 per dishwasher in tax CREDITS solely because the eco-left wanted Energy efficiency? THAT's largely how G.E. (and their jolly dancing greenish pachyderm) dances happily thru the tax jungle. IT LOVES being green. I want those ridiculous credits for eco-left wet dreams to end. Today. Their getting paid for products they would have made anyway because of the eco-left..


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the percentage of the budget that goes to pay employees is much smaller than it was in the 70's.  Look at Boeing, they went from paying their employees 13% of the budget to 6% of the budget.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Free  market?  Is that like our mythical "capitalism" where we bail out financial institutions with $billions while letting the middle class pay more in taxes to cover those companies idiot decisions?  We don't have a "free market" or "capitalism" we never did.  What we have today is much closer to fascism and welfare for the rich.  Think about it, if all those $billions went to the people losing their homes, they could have paid their mortgages and the banks still would have gotten their money.  Instead, thanks to our government, the money has been stolen from the middle class and poor to pay the wealthy.  Yeah, great "free market" we have, isn't it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2011)

The govt is incapable of mounting a "homeowner rescue" such as you propose AgainSheila. And the note holders got the money because the loans were fundamentally bad. Made to folks who didn't really qualify. So why would you pay their mortgages? For how long? Now that's not really a solution is it?

Maybe reduce their negative equity? For Free? Maybe that would be better, but identifying the "needy" from all those who are simply underwater is beyond the capabilities of the FEDs.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> The govt is incapable of mounting a "homeowner rescue" such as you propose AgainSheila. And the note holders got the money because the loans were fundamentally bad. Made to folks who didn't really qualify. So why would you pay their mortgages? For how long? Now that's not really a solution is it?
> 
> Maybe reduce their negative equity? For Free? Maybe that would be better, but identifying the "needy" from all those who are simply underwater is beyond the capabilities of the FEDs.



In a "free market" the banks wouldn't have been bailed out at taxpayer expense.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Are you going to respond to the subject matter?
What you posted is nonsense.
Oh, since you opened the door.....It is incumbent upon the operators of a business to control costs. If Boeing has lowered it's labor costs while operating at peak efficiency, the management should be congratulated. The business of business is to turn a profit for the investors.
before your knee jerks upward and cracks you squarely in the chin....Boeing's new Charleston facility will pay near or at union scale wages. The cost of labor is lower because there's no union to slow productivity and increase expenses. 
The company saves money, the workers are well compensated. Everybody is happy.
Where's the problem?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



1% of our nation owns more wealth than 90% of our nation, I would think that you could see the problem, but apparently, I'm wrong.

If things went according to history, we'd have already had Bastille day.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Now that is not even close to being true and if it were, so what?
That has no bearing on anyone. There is no finite amount of wealth. Wealth is created.
There is no "share".....The zero sum game is a myth.
Now, try answering the question put to you above.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You are right, the pie is getting bigger,unfortunately, only a small percentage of the people are getting a bigger piece.  Like I said, if things went according to history we would have already had our Bastille day.  No country can long survive with the vast majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.  I've come up with some ways to fix the problem, you just don't believe there is a problem.  You thinks it's perfectly fine to have the vast majority of our country's wealth in the hands of very few individuals.  

I feel for you when the revolution finally comes.  I don't think you'll survive it, you won't even know what happened, or why.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Using the force of government sanctions to confiscate the rightful property of certain people to transfer it to those who did not earn it is not a "fix"....


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I think you're confusing free market with government misconduct or incompetence, Sheila.  In a free market the government gets out of it and lets the people put together the society it needs to succeed or make things better.

I am for the government doing no more than is necessary to secure and protect our rights and then letting the people live their lives.  America has good people, and given proper incentive and opportunity, makes good, prosperous communities, and those who wish to benefit generally can.

The government cannot dictate our lives better than we can choose for ourselves.
The government cannot spend our money more effectively or efficiently than we can spend it for ourselves.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Making obscene amounts of money off the backs of the working people is not "rightful" in anyway shape or form.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No, but the government can fix a living minimum wage, thereby reducing our income gap and putting more money in the hands of the working people and less in the hands of the obscenely wealthy.  As I said before, no country can long survive with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



They've fixed and fixed and fixed the minimum wage.  And with each increase, the pool of hardcore unemployed has increased among our poorest citizens.  I think it is time to rethink that philosophy.



> *Unemployment*
> Some economists suggest that the minimum wage imposes a wage floor that prices cheap labor out of the market, reducing the pool of low-wage jobs. Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggests that "businesses are not charities and that they only create jobs when they think a worker will generate net revenue. Higher minimum wages ... are especially destructive for people with poor work skills and limited work experience. This is why young people and minorities tend to suffer most." Put differently: If an employer needs someone to perform odd jobs, and he values the work at $2 per hour, he will not hire a person if the minimum wage is $7 per hour, thus keeping unemployment in low-wage brackets higher than it would otherwise be.
> 
> *Welfare and Work Incentive*
> ...


The article goes on to discuss effects on minorities and reduced training opportunities.  And if you move on to CATO and Heritage Foundation and others who have done extensive research, they explain the upward push on costs and prices when the wages are artificially inflated and that also hurts most the people least able to afford those increases.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It's been awhile, but the last report I read stated that the last two times the minimum wage was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.  I'll have to go looking for it but there is a very interesting article on the myths of raising the minimum wage. 

In 1968, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history.  The highest tax rate was 70%.  Corporations weren't considered "individuals" and had to follow laws.  The average CEO worked his way up in the company and made approx 57 times what his workers made, his goals were for the good of the company and it's employees.  Today the average  comes in from outside the company, his goals are to make as much money as he can and to heck with the company, hence we have so many bankruptcies.  CEO's making 500-1000 times what their employees are making.  Retirement plans being raided by corporations and people who've worked hard all their lives being cheated out of their retirement by people who've never really worked a day in their lives.  Do you really think this is better than it was in 1968?

What other job have you ever heard of when someone fails so miserably he is paid $millions to leave the company?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



But that's the difference in a government minimalist as myself and a big government person as yourself.  You seem to put far more faith and confidence in government than I do.  

You seem to want government to take down the rich.  I want government to stay out of all of our business as much as possible.

You seem to want poverty eliminated by giving people what you think they should have instead of what they actually earn.

I have a lived a good long life now and have seen the minimum wage increased many times as well as most of the other government generated entitlements that we now have go into effect.  And I am convinced of two irrefutable facts.

1.  You cannot eliminate poverty through any means other than providing incentive and jobs that will allow people to work themselves out of it.

2.  You cannot help the poor by taking down the rich or punishing the rich in any way.  Any attempt by government to confiscate the wealth of the rich will only enrich somebody else who is already rich.  And it will inevitably result in less employment, opportunity, choices, credit, and options available to the poor.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Do you really think those CEO's "earn" 500-1000 times what their workers make?  Do you really believe mw workers "earn" so little that we have to subsidize their pay with welfare?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


You'll never understand opportunity education, achievement or success because you believe money or wealth to exist in a vacuum.
instead of doing things the right way which is doing what ever you can to the best of your ability to improve your situation, you wring your hands worrying about what everyone else is doing.
Whether Joe Smith makes a million per year and john smith makes minimum wage is of no consequence to you or anyone else.
BTW, no amount of money is obscene. That is an opinion.
Be careful what you wish for. One day someone else could decide you make an obscene amount of money. Or they may think your home is inappropriate.
You people who dream up ways to take from others will never get what you want.
Your blathering about revolution is idiotic.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Not really.  Read some history.  Particularly about the French Revolution, but don't forget the American Revolution as well.  Pay attention to the facts, not the myths.  For example, the Boston Tea Party took place because the tea tax was too low, not too high.  Most of our forefathers were smugglers and with the low tax, they couldn't make enough selling their smuggled tea.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


No. The government cannot do this. What you suggest would be a massive unfunded mandate which would cause massive loss of employment. This kind of interference from government would absolutely crush the economy. Small business which employs 60% of American workers would become non existent. 
Do you really think the federal government could simply wave a magic wand and the money for your silly idea would magically appear?.
Please stop this absurdity.
Until you can walk a mile in a business owner's shoes, you have no right to an opinion on this matter.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Holy shit. You're a nut.
The French Revolution? Please. France was a monarchy. Not a representative republic. 
You live in a parallel universe.
Comparing the USA to Feudal France is lie comparing Texas Toast to Silly Putty. The latter I believe to reside between your ears.


----------



## shintao (Jun 10, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.
> 
> ...



The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.


----------



## dblack (Jun 10, 2011)

shintao said:


> The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.



???


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

shintao said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


False. The clause reads...."to provide for the general welfare"....
In no way does that mean anything remotely close to confiscation from a producer to reward the non producer.
Look, if you think you'll be immune in your redistribution scheme, you're nuts.
Greed has many forms. Your side believes anyone who wishes to keep as much as they earn is greedy. You also believe people of means are greedy because they use their money to earn money....
On the other hand, those who demand government confiscate the property of others to benefit themselves are greedy.
I think anyone who is capable of working, refuses to work then demands government pay them from funds earned by producers demonstrates the worst form of greed.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 10, 2011)

dblack said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.
> ...


Really....I too am shocked at the absurd views of some people.
Legendary bank robber Jesse James when asked why he robbed banks responded by saying "because that is where the money is"...
Well , these libs have the same notion. Only that it is anyone who they deem as having enough become the robbed. Only these people use government to do their bidding under the guise of compassion.


----------



## Vel (Jun 10, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Morality of Wealth Redistribution
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Just curious, but where does the money come from that funds those programs if there is no wealth distribution?


----------



## Wacky Quacky (Jun 10, 2011)

shintao said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



That's a slippery slope shintao. One that I wish would be done away with. 

All that's required, based on Supreme Court rulings, for legislation to be legal under the General Welfare Clause is that some argument be made for why it makes people's lives better. Problem is, that's completely subjective. Anything can be made to _sound_ like it will make your life better. Forcing all middle class Americans to shop exclusively at Wal-Mart can be made to sound like it's bettering their lives. A power so broad and vague can't possibly be good for this country, unless you believe that living in a dictatorship is good.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Correction please.  The clause does not read "to provide for the general welfare."  The clause reads to provide for the common defense but PROMOTE the general welfare.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."​
The Founders pretty much to a man didn't want the federal government providing much of anything to anybody other than common roads that would be used equally and without prejudice by rich and poor alike and such as that.   They knew full well how corrupting it would be if those in government could confiscate property from one citizen and give that property to another.  Not only would it be corrupting to the government but also to the recipients of the charity.

And their views and opinion on that has been proved accurate again and again and again.

I personally think 90% of the problems we have in this country would be fixed if we would just make it illegal for Congress or any part of the Federal government to use the people's money to benefit anybody unless it benefitted all equally.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > shintao said:
> ...



90% of our problems would be solved is we returned to the tax rates of the 1990's.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Yep.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Oh yeah.  By all means let's give Congress encouragement to spend us into two eons of bankruptcy instead of just one.    They aren't even suggesting returning any money to the treasury.  Nope.  Just more and bigger spending and they call slowing down the size of growth of already unsustainable debt a 'spending cut'.

I want to put them on a strict diet.  Not increase the money supply for them.

You don't raise taxes in a deep, long recession.  It's bad enough to do that when the economy is strong.

We have American businesses sitting on two trillion in investable assets right now because of the uncertainty of taxes, regulation, Obamacare, energy supply, etc. etc. etc.  Those making profits are supplying jobs and activity overseas, not here.

Until we get somebody into the Whitehouse and Congress with half a brain about strong economies and what creates them, we're screwed.  But we sure as hell don't want to make them think they've got even money coming to waste three fold.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. We need to raise taxes and pull back the military empire.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



We have a strong economy, but the money is concentrated in too few hands.

Glad you get that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2011)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into a more balanced budget by a strong GOP majority in Congress.

Bush and the GOP congress pulled us out of a recession that could have been made devastating by 9/11 by lowering taxes for everybody.

I don't expect you to acknowledge that.  But those who haven't drunk the I hate Bush and the Republicans and I worship Obama kool-ade just might read up on it from a reliable source and know what I'm saying here is the truth.


----------



## Chris (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Horseshit.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. The Republicans almost destroyed America.

We have to raise taxes.


----------



## Chris (Jun 11, 2011)

Think about this my friend...

What if half the people in the United States suddenly doubled their net worth?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 11, 2011)

Going off to bed reciting over and over:

"Lord give me the grace and courage to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises of futility."   "Lord, give me the grace and . . . ."


----------



## Chris (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Going off to bed reciting over and over:
> 
> "Lord give me the grace and courage to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises of futility."   "Lord, give me the grace and . . . ."



You really are arrogant.

How sad.


----------



## elvis (Jun 11, 2011)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Going off to bed reciting over and over:
> ...



You're a load that should have been spit.

How sad.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


But the GOP congress forced Clinton to raise taxes? Uh huh.


----------



## shintao (Jun 11, 2011)

dblack said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > The American Constitution is based on giving away other peoples money for the support of others. That is the general welfare clause.
> ...


First Bank of the United StatesMain article: First Bank of the United States
In 1791, former Morris aide and chief advocate for Northern merchantile interests, Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, stuck a deal with Southern lawmakers to ensure the continuation of Morris's Bank project; in exchange for support by the South for a national bank, *Hamilton agreed to ensure sufficient support to have the national or federal capital moved from its temporary Northern location, New York, to a Southern location on the Potomac. As a result, the First Bank of the United States (17911811) was chartered by Congress within the year and signed by George Washington soon after.* 

The nation had few taxes in its early history. *From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves.* The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

*In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law.* It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an inheritance tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year historymore than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 11, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The Clinton tax hike was in 1993 when he still had a Democratic Congress.  The GOP didn't take over until after the 1994 election.

The GOP Congress pushed through a tax cut in 1997 that really boosted the economy and created the balanced budget and Clinton to his credit did sign that bill.

Pretty good discussion on all that here:
Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom | The Heritage Foundation


----------



## Chris (Jun 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



45% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.

Our taxes are too low, that's why we have a huge deficit.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the wealthy.


----------



## dblack (Jun 11, 2011)

shintao said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > shintao said:
> ...



I have no idea what you're going on about here. My confusion was over your statement that our government was _based_ on the general welfare clause.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > shintao said:
> ...



A living mw would benefit all.  It would make us once again a first world power instead of a 3rd world nation.  Only 3rd world nations have such high income gaps and they lead to a whole lot of problems including rebellion.

Also, we have people who need our help, like the disabled.  Do you believe they shouldn't receive government help?


----------



## Wolfmoon (Jun 12, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


 
It&#8217;s just another government ploy to pull the wool over the sheep&#8217;s eyes and deflect the truth. The government has a 30 year plan to change the face of America.

1. Strip Americans from their wealth.

2. Take America&#8217;s guns away.

3. Put America on her knees so, what they offer us looks good.

4. Become a &#8220;One World Government&#8221; &#8220;One World Order&#8221;, where the U.N. is the ruler of all lands and the Constitution is a dead useless piece of paper.


----------



## Chris (Jun 12, 2011)

Wolfmoon said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



What a delusional post.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 12, 2011)

Chris said:


> Think about this my friend...
> 
> What if half the people in the United States suddenly doubled their net worth?



By looting the other half?

the result would be an economic catastrophe so vast that sufficient words to describe it don't exist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

elvis said:


> You're a load that should have been spit.
> 
> How sad.



Now that's what *I* call eloquence....


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Think about this my friend...
> ...



Yeah, it works so much better when only a few loot the rest.

What do you call it when the Walmart family makes $millions each off of the labor of people they pay so little they qualify for foodstamps?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Those workers were FORCED to work there?? You were FORCED to shop there? Those workers could not apply anywhere else??

People are free to go for their own success or failure, whether you like their legal business practices or not


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Think about this my friend...
> ...



Exactly.  Chris got one thing right and only one thing that I've seen so far when he said 48% don't pay tax.  I'm assuming he meant wage earners because that is the group that figure applies to and he's a tad low on the percentage but close.

So we have half of working Americans paying little or no federal income tax and that leaves the other half to carry all the load.  But his ilk wants the half that carries all the load to carry a bigger load.

I say reduce the load on the half currently carrying it because that is the group that is furnishing jobs to the bottom half.  Lower business taxes, eliminate all regulation we don't absolutely have to have,  allow industries to do their job, and that will free up a lot more resources and capital to encourage new hiring and also increase wages and benefits that would be advisable when more people are competing for good people.

I would do it by going to a flat tax across the board so that everybody is paying the same percentage at whatever level of income.  A reasonable flat exemption would keep from taking food out of the mouths of the truly working poor, but otherwise everybody, richer and less rich would be paying something into the system and also suffering the same consequences of whatever tax policies are imposed by our fearless leaders.  Redistribution of wealth would happen via the free market which is the only way it can happen without doing more harm than good.

No more would half the country have incentive to keep electing incompetent legislators just because they keep the gravy train going but everybody, rich and less rich, would have more incentive to elect the best people we can get.   And if we remove the Federal government's ability to use the people's money for any kind of benefit to any special group, we have solved almost all of the corruption and graft associated with 'redistribution of wealth.'


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






My family despises Wallyworld and we don't shop there.  Their corporate philosophy is totally counter to what we believe in.  They are responsible in large part for the economic decline of this country.  They want to sell products to the masses so cheaply that the only way a company can produce them cheap enough is to go overseas (mainly China) which in turn drives US companies out of business.

Anyone who shops at Wallyworld is contributing to that.  People who work there do it of their own free will.  Oftentimes it is the only job to be had, which is sad.  But those who shop there are contributing to the problem.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



And this is commendable.. if you don't like WallyWorld, this is how you speak against it... not some government intervention bulshit... you don't like them, don't work there or don't shop there... my Fiancee approaches it this way... me, I will go there if there is a special low price on something I want... or if I have to do a lot of quick shopping and I only have time for 1 stop (and i can get the food and other things all in one quick stop).... but I sooner go to local produce stands or SuperTarget or wherever else ona regular basis


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Anyone who shops at Wallyworld is contributing to that.  People who work there do it of their own free will.  Oftentimes it is the only job to be had, which is sad.  But those who shop there are contributing to the problem.



Wal-Mart dominates by negotiating for special subsidies and privilege from local government. This is neither the fault of the hourly employees who work for Wal-Mart, nor the people who shop there. It's the fault of government officials who sell out equal protection for money.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yes, many of those workers were "forced" to work there through lack of opportunities elsewhere.  Yes, I am "forced" to shop there as they are the only store I can find which carries velcro fasten shoes for my adult autistic son.  

BTW, the Walmart family INHERITED their wealth.  Sam Walton, the man who built up the business on the practice of "made in America" died and I'll bet he's turning over in his grave at what his children have done to the business.  

Yeah, the Walmart family is free to do pretty much what they want.  Which is why they've gone to court for LOCKING their employees in at night.  You really ought to look up their "business practices".

If I had another way to get those velcro shoes, I wouldn't set foot inside a Walmart store the rest of my life.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Wrong

What forced them not to move or work at McDonalds or start a home cleaning service or anything else??

If you don't like that they got an inheritance passed down in the family from others who put in effort.. or that they expanded it even more.. too bad.. too sad... boo freaking hoo

You're angry and don't like it and instead of using your choice, you wish to punish them in other ways thru big mommy government...

Don't like them, don't shop or work there.... simple as that


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

Oh... and velcro shoes

velcro shoes - Google Search


----------



## newpolitics (Jun 13, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



We redistribute our wealth into politicians pockets all the time, into lobbyists pockets, into corporate band accounts and the CEO's who draw from them... why the FUCK aren't you complaining about that, since it is much more pertinent in ruining our democracy? I hate this false, bitchy ass complaint about 're-distribution' of wealth. The REASON it is morally RIGHT to re-distribute is because many of the rich people got that way by being immoral, in someway exploiting the masses in order to gain their fortune, whether knowingly or not.  They didn't just get rich JUST because they worked harder, although hard work is very important. They relied, unknowingly, on differential advantages.  Whether they are exploiting poor workers in another country who are paid horribly in order to make the product their company designs...  Being white and male affords helps too, and you think that's bullshit, go fuck yourself and wake up to the reality that is our humanity. People hate if it helps them get ahead or cut out the competition. I think racism and sexism are leveraged to cut out any competition to allow a fewer more privileged group of people access to scarce resources. Well, it's taken a lot for minorities and woman to cut through that barrier, and its not completely down, so stop ACTING like the playing field is level because ITS NOT. If you believe otherwise, then you just want to be rich too, and that makes you a jackass. We don't NEED to be rich to be happy. In fact, it has nothing to do with happiness. What is everyone's obsession with needing to be rich? People who talk about this immorality are just selfish people who don't want to help anyone but themselves, ironically.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2011)

I don't despise Wal-mart.  They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them.  I shop there infrequently, however.  And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long.  I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.

But instead of focusing on Wal-Mart as the bad guy, how about focusing on a government who makes a Wal-mart possible and/or even necessary?  How about demanding a government that will stop crushing business spirit and initiative and will rather remove onerous tax and regulation policies and provide incentives for more jobs to be created here?  More products to be manufactured here?

Labor is a commodity like anything else.  And it is worth more the less there is of it.  Work to restore full employment in this country and Wal-mart, along with everybody else, will be forced to raise wages and improve benefits to attract and keep good people.  Those that continue to work in low paying 'drudge' jobs will be those that simply aren't capable or willing to do anything else.  But there needs to be a place for them too.

We have a government that seems gung ho to keep American business oppressed and American labor unemployed and encourages cheaper products made by cheaper labor overseas.  Fix that, and you fix all of it.


----------



## CountofTuscany (Jun 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



But keeping it real, so does every other major retailer.  Sears, Target, K Mart, no matter where you go. Look at the label of almost everything you buy, no matter where you buy it from and you'll see it comes from Asia.  

I'd love to buy American again. But unless it becomes affordable to live in America on blue collar wages again, that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Wal-Mart dominates by negotiating for special subsidies and privilege from local government.



Nonsense - utter bullshit.



> This is neither the fault of the hourly employees who work for Wal-Mart, nor the people who shop there. It's the fault of government officials who sell out equal protection for money.



Any incentives, such as tax deferments offered by localities are subject to review by any agency plus the public. If your city council offers Walmart a years deferential in hopes of attracting jobs and ongoing tax revenue, that's a smart move. If you don't agree, vote the council out. Welcome to a free country. If you don't like free countries, move to California.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



No it's not that simple.  There aren't enough jobs out there.  The last time I went looking for a job, when my husband was unemployed, it took me a YEAR.  Never before had it ever taken me that long to find a job.  I used to think I could get one in a couple of days, I used to be able to but that option isn't out there today.  Why?  Most of our jobs have been sent overseas and those that remain are being filled by immigrants, both legal and illegal.  They don't want Americans.  That's why if you get a job at Walmart you HAVE to take it.  I'm sure you would rather they be homeless and unemployed but most people WANT to provide for themselves even though our economy and society today make it impossible for many.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> No it's not that simple.  There aren't enough jobs out there.



Thanks Obama - Heck of a job, Barry...



> The last time I went looking for a job, when my husband was unemployed, it took me a YEAR.



Walmart getting picky and asking for a high school diploma, or something?



> Never before had it ever taken me that long to find a job.



Thank those who voted for hopey changey....



> Why?  Most of our jobs have been sent overseas and those that remain are being filled by immigrants, both legal and illegal.



So you are only qualified to pull a lever on a widget making machine?



> They don't want Americans.



Who is "they?"


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Wal-Mart dominates by negotiating for special subsidies and privilege from local government.
> ...



Good answer, good answer!

Are you saying Wal-Mart doesn't negotiate for these perks? Or that it doesn't give them an advantage over local competitors who don't get them?

Or are you just saying 'bullshit'?



> Any incentives, such as tax deferments offered by localities are subject to review by any agency plus the public. If your city council offers Walmart a years deferential in hopes of attracting jobs and ongoing tax revenue, that's a smart move. If you don't agree, vote the council out. Welcome to a free country. If you don't like free countries, move to California.



Hmm.... I guess it's a 'smart move' if your goal is to fuck over mom and pop to bring in a few more tax dollars. Our government isn't designed to run on pure majority rule. It's constitutionally constrained to prevent the majority from screwing over the minority willy-niily.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not that simple.  There aren't enough jobs out there.
> ...



Actually, it was under Bush that my husband was laid off.  It was under Bush that it took me a year to find a job, and it was under Bush that that job was sent to India.

Obama hasn't been a big help, but he didn't ruin out country all by himself.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Good answer, good answer!
> 
> Are you saying Wal-Mart doesn't negotiate for these perks? Or that it doesn't give them an advantage over local competitors who don't get them?
> 
> Or are you just saying 'bullshit'?



I'm saying that your claim is complete bullshit.

When an business of significance files a intent, cities and counties very well may seek to offer enticements to create the tax and employment opportunities in their area.

You claimed that Walmart gets "special subsidies;" show me these. Show me where this happens. Yes, California EDD pays a portion of wages for hard to place or handicapped workers - it's a subsidy, but nothing special about it. Walmart is no more eligible than any other business.



> Hmm.... I guess it's a 'smart move' if your goal is to fuck over mom and pop to bring in a few more tax dollars.



The myth of the "mom and pop." Most smaller stores couldn't compete against Target, KMart or Sears. You demand that consumers pay higher prices, for what? To assuage some social conscience MSNBC fabricates for you?

Again, your premise is bullishit - a fabrication.



> Our government isn't designed to run on pure majority rule.



And the relevance of that is? You think the government should outlaw Walmart, because Jon Stewart told you they were bad?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Our economy is on a bell curve, with the majority of it's wealth in the top 1%, who's income has gone up more than 150% since the 70's, and you want the people who are in poverty paying taxes?  You can't get blood out of a turnip.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Actually, it was under Bush that my husband was laid off.



Generally jobs were plentiful under Bush. 



> It was under Bush that it took me a year to find a job, and it was under Bush that that job was sent to India.



You DO realize that manufacturing jobs that offshore do so because of regulation - particularly environmental regulation, not because of labor cost.

Who is it that is behind onerous regulation again? Oh yeah, the fascist democrats and the enviro-wacko cadre therein.



> Obama hasn't been a big help, but he didn't ruin out country all by himself.



Oh, you're right about that. Harry, Nancy and particularly Algore, have a huge part in it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it was under Bush that my husband was laid off.
> ...



Bush has to take his lumps too though.  He offered a social entitlement concept, an energy policy, an environmental policy, and an immigration policy that only a leftist socialist could love.  And all of that played a part in some of the problems we're seeing now.  He and the GOP Congress could have done the nation a great service by making the very good 2003 tax policy permanent when they had the chance, but they didn't.

Yes, Obama has done nothing to help any of the problems and has exacerbated most, but if we are brutally honest, we need a whole new perspective in Washington.


----------



## editec (Jun 13, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wolfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


 
Yet that is PRECISELY where we are headed.

Odd, that it takes a DELUSIONAL THINKER to notice the bleeding obvious isn't it?

_Howl on_ Wolf.


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You claimed that Walmart gets "special subsidies;" show me these. Show me where this happens.



The Damage of Walmart - The Northern Iowan - University of Northern Iowa

A simple google search will net you a long list of similar articles documenting the practice. No one really denies that this goes on. Wal-Mart doesn't deny it. The cities and states playing these games don't deny. I can't stop _you_ from denying it, but neither can I take you seriously if you do.



> When an business of significance files a intent, cities and counties very well may seek to offer enticements to create the tax and employment opportunities in their area.



Yep. That's the part that's wrong. Cities and counties shouldn't be allowed grant special favors to one business while sticking it to everyone else just because that business has lots of money to throw around. 



> The myth of the "mom and pop." Most smaller stores couldn't compete against Target, KMart or Sears.



You think it's a 'myth' that if one business gets tax-abatements, free infrastructure support, special carve-out offers from government they'll have an advantage over those who don't? 



> Again, your premise is bullishit - a fabrication.



Heh.. deny it all you want, but I'm not lying. All this is accepted fact. The question is whether it's the kind of government we want. 



> > Our government isn't designed to run on pure majority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> And the relevance of that is?



You don't see the relevance of constitutionally limited government?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed that Walmart gets "special subsidies;" show me these. Show me where this happens.
> ...



Isn't it amazing how many people say they don't believe in socialism actually do but only when it comes to the wealthy.  Bail outs for the banks.  Subsidies for corporations.  But of course the workers deserve nothing, not even a living wage.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



It is that simple. It's not society's responsibility, nor government's responsibility, for you to find a job for your own earning needs... That is the fatal flaw in your thinking... 

You don't HAVE to take squat... you make the free choice to do what you have to do.. whether it be a job at walmart, a graveyard shift job at the quickie mart, scooping poop, or whatever else...

Oh.. and look at why jobs go overseas... make things a little more friendly here in terms of corporate taxation, and things may change


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Isn't it amazing how many people say they don't believe in socialism actually do but only when it comes to the wealthy.  Bail outs for the banks.  Subsidies for corporations.  But of course the workers deserve nothing, not even a living wage.



If by 'amazing', you mean totally fucking depressing - yeah, I guess. I honestly don't see a dime's worth of difference between modern 'liberals' and 'conservatives'. Both sides are just as excited about ubiquitous government, just as excited about forcing their values on others.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bush has to take his lumps too though.  He offered a social entitlement concept, an energy policy, an environmental policy, and an immigration policy that only a leftist socialist could love.



The ONLY good thing I can say about Bush is that he was better than Obama. I never voted for him and opposed most of his agenda. 



> And all of that played a part in some of the problems we're seeing now.  He and the GOP Congress could have done the nation a great service by making the very good 2003 tax policy permanent when they had the chance, but they didn't.



Good point.



> Yes, Obama has done nothing to help any of the problems and has exacerbated most, but if we are brutally honest, we need a whole new perspective in Washington.



That's why I vote Libertarian.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



How 12 Multinational Corporations Avoid Paying Taxes | Economy | AlterNet
How 12 Multinational Corporations Avoid Paying Taxes


U.S. Corporations Not Paying Taxes | WallStNation.com
U.S. Corporations Not Paying Taxes

Jane Devin: Many US Corporations Not Paying Taxes At All


Many US Corporations Not Paying Taxes At All

Corporations not Paying Fair Share | Free Range Longmont

Corporations not Paying Fair Share

and on and on it goes.

Yeah, it's terrible how those corporations are sending jobs overseas because here they aren't paying any taxes at all......


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Umm, I'd call that Bullshit because WalMart's wages are among the highest in the retail business. Not only are Walmart workers well paid, they also receive superior benefits.
To answer your question directly, here is the one thing that people who are like you cannot fathom. The primary function of a business is to achieve a positive return on investment for the owners and or investors. 
The mere fact that WalMart is the largest corporation in the world and is one of the largest employers in the world dispels your notion that the company is this evil empire. If workers were so poorly treated there would be very few people willing to work for the company...
Note....there is no such thing as indentured servitude.
And please, don't start that baloney about walmart being the only employer in town and there are not any other jobs. That's nonsense.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Fair... the word you libs love to use.. subjective as it may be...

And it has been debunked SO many times about 'corporations not paying any taxes'... no matter how many times huffo puffo and other winger sites love to spout it off

The fact is the corporate taxation rate is outrageous, and the loopholes are many... and it makes it more advantageous for companies to set up elsewhere... moving jobs away from American workers... it is that simple


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> The Damage of Walmart - The Northern Iowan - University of Northern Iowa



There are some serious issues with this article;

First off, instead of offering documentation for claim of subsidies, you offer a similar rant from another leftist who still fails to substantiate the claim.

{Nationwide, Wal-Mart has received $1.008 billion in subsidies} Really? Where are the citations supporting this claim? In the foot notes? Nope - in line using APA or MLA? Nope, just an unsubstantiated claim.

{The average yearly income for a full-time hourly worker at Wal-Mart is $13,861.}

Really? That's $6.66 an hour, less than minimum wage. 

Further, looking to a legitimate source, I see that the average wage for an "associate" is actually $25,030

Wal-Mart Associate Salary | Glassdoor.com

Your source openly and outright lied.



> A simple google search will net you a long list of similar articles documenting the practice.



No, it will get similar vitriol sans substantiation. 



> No one really denies that this goes on. Wal-Mart doesn't deny it.



Deny what, specifically?



> Yep. That's the part that's wrong. Cities and counties shouldn't be allowed grant special favors to one business while sticking it to everyone else just because that business has lots of money to throw around.



Why not? You seek to remove the freedom of cities to govern themselves? Perhaps Washington DC can set city and county tax rates? Perhaps ACORN can decide what businesses are or are not allowed?



> You think it's a 'myth' that if one business gets tax-abatements, free infrastructure support, special carve-out offers from government they'll have an advantage over those who don't?



If you think they do, you're free to file suit. 



> Heh.. deny it all you want, but I'm not lying. All this is accepted fact. The question is whether it's the kind of government we want.



You're reciting a myth. You are swearing by an urban legend.



> You don't see the relevance of constitutionally limited government?



It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Bull crap.....What kind of skills do you have? Have you ever stopped to consider you may be the problem? That you lack the marketable skills to make you a viable candidate for emloyment?
Oh, most of what jobs have been sent overseas?
Look, you don't get to sit there in your self pity, do nothing to make your skills more marketable and whine that jobs for which you are qualified, do not pay enough for you to maintain a lifestyle you think you deserve.
Newsflash....We are all lifestyle limited by our skills and earning power. Our first priority is to strive to improve ourselves to make us more marketable to employers.
Demanding that by government fiat we should all be given some sort of instant increase in wage via unfunded mandate is ludicrous.
Get off your crying whining ass and do something to make yourself so attractive to prospective employer that they may as well shut down the interview process right as they are through with you. Dazzle them with your presentation. This is how one makes themselves irresistible to prospective employers. Oh, one other thing. Learn to deal with disappointment in a level headed manner.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 13, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Oh no... it's NEVER them... they live in a perpetual state of victimization.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 13, 2011)

The essence of liberalism is to find a victim and figure out a way to wrench property away from the perceived victimizer to give to the victim in an effort to right some egregious wrong that never really occurred in the first place.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I posted links...where are your debunking the corporations not paying taxes????

The corporation tax rate is almost nil, it has certainly gone down drastically since the 60's and back then they weren't sending our jobs overseas, of course the CEOs didn't make 500 to 1000 times what their workers made either.  For some, we are actually PAYING them to be in business (more socialization, but only for the wealthy).


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> There are some serious issues with this article;



Sure yeah, whatever. I didn't even read that article. You ask for examples of something totally obvious so I grabbed the first damn thing that popped up on google. I'm not really interested in debating with you about whether companies like Wal-Mart get special perks in the form tax abatements and special favors from local government. If you're denying that, there's not much more to talk about.

For those not so deluded, I'm curious how we can justify such uneven application of the law. Why is it fair for certain companies to get special 'breaks' simply because they're larger?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



We have gone thru the myth of 'corporations not paying taxes' ad nauseum on this board...

The corporate tax rate is almost nil?? Are you smoking crack?? Try ~39.2% in 2010

And of course... the CEO pay numbers... which of course you want yourself or your government cronies to limit because it makes you feel better... take away from those evil do-nothings


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> The corporate tax rate is almost nil?? Are you smoking crack?? Try ~39.2% in 2010



It's not the rate that's the issue. The rates is actually too high. It's the fact that it's applied unevenly. Company's that get stuck actually paying that much are getting screwed, while those who play the game get off paying hardly anything.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > The corporate tax rate is almost nil?? Are you smoking crack?? Try ~39.2% in 2010
> ...



The ones who are paying hardly anything are the ones outsourcing jobs and shifting all their profits to overseas activities and shifting all their costs/expenses to operations here.  That's how the megacorporation like G.E. pays nothing in federal corporate taxes.  How are punished?   The Obama Administration tapped GE exec Inmelt to head his jobs creation advisory counsel.  The irony in that is dripping.

And yes, the U.S. corporate tax rate is right up there at the top with Japan without the advantages Japan gives to its corporate entities in other ways.

If the U.S. government really wants a strong U.S. economy that keeps jobs at home, it will initiate policy and regulation that encourages businesses to hire people and make things here.  So, since we aren't doing that, but the Administration is calling for policy and regulation that is going to make things much much worse, one wonders how serious they are in making things better here.

Wealth redistribution can also be interpreted as taking U.S. wealth and transferring it to other places.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 13, 2011)

Hi tax rates in the U.S. punish smaller companies that do not have the international breadth and phalanx of tax lawyers to help them mitigate the damage.

The Mega Corps like this arrangement as it stunts smaller competitors.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> How 12 Multinational Corporations Avoid Paying Taxes | Economy | AlterNet
> How 12 Multinational Corporations Avoid Paying Taxes
> 
> 
> ...





Notice how the boogeyman of the left, Wal-Mart, isn't on these lists? Notice how the puppet masters holding Obama's strings, General Electric and Goldman Sachs - ARE?


----------



## FiscalSanity (Jun 13, 2011)

Folks,

The reason a lot of corporations don't pay income taxes is that they make sure that they don't earn a taxable profit.  I'm not talking about publicly traded companies, I'm talking about the private family owned companies where every family member has a piece of the company and is carried on the books as an employee.  In those situations all of the profits are going to go to "employees" anyway, so they just give bonuses, raises, etc that offset any profit, and thus escape paying the corporate tax on profits.  They still have to pay individual income tax on those bonuses and such, but thats far cheaper then having it first taxed as corporate profit and then again as individual income.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Sure yeah, whatever. I didn't even read that article.



That figures, your idea of citation is some crap from a leftist blog that you didn't even bother to read...

kinda says all that needs be said, doesn't it?


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> kinda says all that needs be said, doesn't it?



I suppose it does!


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I don't despise Wal-mart.  They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them.  I shop there infrequently, however.  And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long.  I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.
> 
> But instead of focusing on Wal-Mart as the bad guy, how about focusing on a government who makes a Wal-mart possible and/or even necessary?  How about demanding a government that will stop crushing business spirit and initiative and will rather remove onerous tax and regulation policies and provide incentives for more jobs to be created here?  More products to be manufactured here?
> 
> ...






The problems I have with wallmart are listed above, and to add to them, wallmart regularly buys influence with small governments and they push out the small businesses who can't compete with them.  Walmart claims that they increase jobs but they don't.  The amount of jobs they create is countered by those they destroy.

The main problem is they have enough money they can get the government to do almost anything they want that will drive out whatever local competition there is.  They are using government to destroy small business and that is a crime.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > There are some serious issues with this article;
> ...


Like when BMW gets a tax break from Greenville and Spartanburg Counties to build not only a large automotive plant there,but also agrees to pay for an expansion of the airport in return for bringing in 10,000 new and very well paying jobs?
Like when Dell gets tax breaks to build a new assembly plant in Greensboro, NC in return for creating 1,500 news jobs?
These deals are made all the time. It's business. In business parties make trades. Everybody wins.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I don't despise Wal-mart.  They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them.  I shop there infrequently, however.  And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long.  I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.
> ...


A typical Wal Mart store employs hundreds of workers. The business that may close as a result may employ a few dozen workers combined.
Lowes.Target, Home Depot and Many other large retailers do the same thing.
This phenomenon did not start with Wal Mart. It started with the invention of the suburban shopping mall. 
Wal Mart gets picked on for two reasons. One is it's staunchly anti- union stance. That makes no sense in that the businesses that would close because of the presence of a Wal Mart were non union anyway. Two, Wal Mart has supplanted Exxon/Mobil and GM ( big union) as the largest corporation in the world. People seem to despise old number one.


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Like when BMW gets a tax break from Greenville and Spartanburg Counties to build not only a large automotive plant there,but also agrees to pay for an expansion of the airport in return for bringing in 10,000 new and very well paying jobs?
> Like when Dell gets tax breaks to build a new assembly plant in Greensboro, NC in return for creating 1,500 news jobs?
> These deals are made all the time. It's business. In business parties make trades. Everybody wins.



I couldn't disagree more. The government leaders and the businesses involved might 'win'. The rest of us get screwed. In particular, the businesses trying to compete with the companies getting in bed with government get screwed. The corporate state is not something I want to see in my lifetime, and people lauding the view you represent here are inviting just that. We should keep business out of government and government out of business.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Like when BMW gets a tax break from Greenville and Spartanburg Counties to build not only a large automotive plant there,but also agrees to pay for an expansion of the airport in return for bringing in 10,000 new and very well paying jobs?
> ...


In a perfect world you'd be spot on. However, the USA is made up of 50 states each with different tax laws, tax structures and various other regulations. That means states must compete for businesses. It's sort of like the free agent market in Major League Baseball. The owners( States) know darn well they should not extend big money( tax breaks) to quality players ( businesses) but they do not want the other team owners( states) to get a crack at the star player( business). SO they off the best deal ( tax break) for the player( business) andif that means spending high dollars (loss of some tax revenue), so be it
Plus. Big plus. With the promise and delivery of hundreds or even thousands of new and well paying jobs, states are welcoming the new companies because the additional payroll taxes, sales taxes from equipment purchases by the firm, new spending power of the workers, etc will make up for the loss in property tax revenue. Plus it's just plain old good PR for local and state politicians to be "pro business and pro new jobs"..
At this point in this shitty economy, job creation is crucial.
I don't see how anyone gets "screwed"....


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2011)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I don't despise Wal-mart.  They have found a way to thrive and prosper in a very business unfriendly environment and I say power to them.  I shop there infrequently, however.  And I've never worked for them but I have family members who have (retired school teachers) and they did not find it a bad experience even though they didn't stay all that long.  I hope to leave something for my kids too that will increase their ability to do more with their lives that otherwise might not be possible.
> ...



I have heard allegations like that but have never seen any evidence to back it up.   Here is Albuquerque, the Wal-marts are almost all anchor stores in shopping centers or strip malls and are essential to pull business in for everybody else there.  When a Super Center wanted to go in out in our former mountain community just outside Albuquerque, we all objected because we didn't want to lose the rustic atmsophere and the small mom and pop businesses there.  The Wal-mart was not built even though there was more than a sufficient trade area for it.

We're on the same page on most things Westie.  Do you have a credible source to back up your accusations of Wal-Mart here?

Who is to blame.  Those who petition and buy influence from the government?  Or the government who can be bought?


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...






That's true but try drivin through Kansas some day.  Wherever a walmart is, there is very little else.  All of the small businesses are gone with the concurrent loss of jobs.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...





I will find the articles that go into great depth on how walmart drives small businesses out of busine.  As far as who is to blame i would say everyone.  The governments are clearly complicit in the arrangements.  Walmart's biggest crime in my opinion is driving manufacturing out of the US to produce the cheapest possible goods.  Large cities such as Albuquerque can absorb the hit that a walmart mete's out.  Small towns can't however.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 14, 2011)

westwall said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well I've read a ton of stuff on Wal-mart so I'm hoping you can find a credible source as most sources are leftwing arms of those who despise and want to destroy Wal-mart.  Wal-mart certainly isn't alone in purchasing cheaper products from overseas so I don't think they can be condemned just for that.  I would take on G.E. before Wal-mart on that score as they don't pay any federal income taxes and pay fewer other taxes than most large companies.  Wal-mart pays a ton of local, state, and federal taxes.

I agree many small towns suffer from any big box store coming into town, but almost all that get those stores solicit them and for a number of small towns they have been a real blessing.  Have you checked the products you find in Office Max, Home Depot, Staples, Costco, Lowes?   Lots and lots of foreign products there too.

I am not defending Wal-mart so much as I try to keep things in perspective and honest.  Liberaldom has been trying to demonize and destroy Wal-mart for a long time because they refuse to unionize or play the politically correct game in other ways.  If Wal-mart is unethical, that should be exposed.  But they should not be the whipping boy for everybody else.


----------



## dblack (Jun 14, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> In a perfect world you'd be spot on. However, the USA is made up of 50 states each with different tax laws, tax structures and various other regulations. That means states must compete for businesses. It's sort of like the free agent market in Major League Baseball. The owners( States) know darn well they should not extend big money( tax breaks) to quality players ( businesses) but they do not want the other team owners( states) to get a crack at the star player( business). SO they off the best deal ( tax break) for the player( business) andif that means spending high dollars (loss of some tax revenue), so be it
> Plus. Big plus. With the promise and delivery of hundreds or even thousands of new and well paying jobs, states are welcoming the new companies because the additional payroll taxes, sales taxes from equipment purchases by the firm, new spending power of the workers, etc will make up for the loss in property tax revenue. Plus it's just plain old good PR for local and state politicians to be "pro business and pro new jobs"..
> At this point in this shitty economy, job creation is crucial.
> I don't see how anyone gets "screwed"....



It's not clear to me whether you're defending this practice as a free market ideal, or a state's rights issue, but it's neither. 

'State's rights' ensures that states aren't dictated to by the federal government. They have the freedom, within certain constraints, to set their own laws and tax policies. The most important of the constraints, in my opinion, is the concept of equal protection. It requires government (local or national) to apply it's laws equally to everyone. Leaders can't decide to only enforce laws against people they don't like, while giving a pass to their cronies. Likewise, they can't, according to principles of equal protection, write laws that give special breaks to individuals or businesses regardless of the quid pro quo involved. To do so is fundamentally unfair to everyone who isn't granted the special privilege and undermines the rule of law.

And while I realize some people think of these policies as 'pro free-market', nothing could be further from the truth. _They are exactly the opposite._ In a free market, the state sets the rules that everyone must follow and otherwise, stays out of the way. The success, or failure, of a given company depends on their ability efficiently provide for the needs and desires of consumers. These policies corrupt that ideal, and elevate a company's ability to manipulate government as a core business strategy. Not only does this encourage business and wealthy interests to become actively involved in manipulating the state, it invites government to become actively involved in dictating 'terms' to the businesses it 'partners' with. The whole process blurs the line between between business and government and creates a dynamic far closer to state socialism than any free market ideal.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 14, 2011)

dblack said:


> I suppose it does!



Thank you for again proving the saw...

The lower the IQ, the further to the left...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 14, 2011)

dblack said:


> I couldn't disagree more. The government leaders and the businesses involved might 'win'. The rest of us get screwed.



"Screwed" through lower prices, more availability, better selection, more convenience...

Damnitall... People need to drive to 15 different stores to get what they need. They need to pay more for lower quality so that Koreans who staff their Bodegas with family members can stay in business!


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...






I certainly agree with you on the GE front.  And I agree with you on the leftist attack on walmart.  I have no problem with the workers of walmart, just with the upper level corporate wonks.  I'll try and dig up those articles today.


----------



## editec (Jun 14, 2011)

I'm informed that the AVERAGE wage of WALMART employees is about $250 a week.

My guess would be the MEDIAN WAGE is even less than that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 14, 2011)

editec said:


> I'm informed that the AVERAGE wage of WALMART employees is about $250 a week.
> 
> My guess would be the MEDIAN WAGE is even less than that.



Informed?

Informed by blowhards on the Huffingglue message board? Wal-Mart has a starting wage of $8.37 an hour, currently.  $250 would represent 30 hours for a new hire. 

No way that is average. Besides, I already posted and cited the average wage for Wal-Mart associates.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 14, 2011)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



IOW you have no proof of anything.  Thanks for playing....


----------



## Chris (Jun 14, 2011)

GE paid no taxes last year.

The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

We don't have a spending problem, we have a tax problem.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2011)

Yep.  The USA has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world which is one reason they ship the jobs overseas.  We very much need to correct that to bring the money and jobs back home.

And those people who are paying no taxes need to pay their fair share.

We don't need to impose more taxes on those we need to provide savings, venture capital, take risks, and engage in commerce and industry that hires people.


----------



## Douger (Jun 15, 2011)

Let's fantasize a bit.(murkins do that all day between viewing flags waving and TV)
Go back to first grade and think about your class mates. OK ? You there yet ?
Imagine if your mommy had her driver take you to school in The Limo, with a thousand dollars in your pocket(just in case) and 40 hamburgers in a warmer in the back of the limo. Just in case you got really hungry.
As you arrived your classmates all were looking weak, famished and all of them said they were  very hungry. Some were shitting their pants because the water was polluted garbage but your mommy knew that and sent 25 gallons in the limo in case you got thirsty.

You make your choice at that moment ( and this moment) as to what you might do.
Are you a social democrat yet ? Or a fucking Nazi Jew piece of shit like your masters?
Sit down. read what I wrote, and decide who YOU are.
 Get it ?


----------



## Antiderivative (Jun 15, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?



Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it. 

I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context.  However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.


----------



## Douger (Jun 15, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?
> ...


You certainly didn't read my posts and most here won't either.I'm normally detested for speaking the truth.
No problem. My guys will arrive in another 2 hours and we'll get to work. If they have any  problems I'll take care of it. NO MATTER WHAT.
I can't do what I do without my workers.That is the American way. Success via the efforts of others.I'm a socialist. My guys and their families are 100% covered.I'll go without before they have to. That's a given.
A.D.  You are super intelligent. Carry on , thanks,and avoid all lies.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 15, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> Define "earned", because many people's wealth do not come from people earning it.
> 
> I define wealth as someone producing something of value in an free market context.  However, we are far from a free market, so my definition of wealth does not carry much weight in our current paradigm.



"Earned" means acquired through voluntary exchange.  "Plunder" is when you acquire money through the use of force.  Take welfare or Social Security as examples of the later.


----------



## Antiderivative (Jun 15, 2011)

Douger said:


> Antiderivative said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



I didn't read your post because it was mostly gibberish like this response.


----------



## Antiderivative (Jun 15, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> "Earned" means acquired through voluntary exchange.
> 
> "Pllunder" is when you acquire money through the use of force.  Take welfare or Social Security as examples of the later.



I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society.  Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.

How do you declare ownership over limited resources that benefit mankind as a whole?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 15, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society.  Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.



Horseshit.  Of course, there's also plenty of compulsion in our society.  For evidence of that just look at your pay stub.  All the amount deducted from you check are examples of plunder.  "Crony capitalism" is what Obama and the Dims endorse.



Antiderivative said:


> How do you declare ownership over limited resources that benefit mankind as a whole?



When you acquire them through voluntary exchange, you own them.  That's how.  Perhaps someone originally "declared" ownership,  but if that's illegitimate, then so is every government on the face of the Earth.


----------



## Antiderivative (Jun 15, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Antiderivative said:
> 
> 
> > I know, but we do not have voluntary exchange in our society.  Instead, we have political and crony capitalism in our society, so welcome to reality.
> ...



Go back and read what I wrote.  I agreed with you, dumbass.  



> When you acquire them through voluntary exchange, you own them.  That's how.  Perhaps someone originally "declared" ownership,  but if that's illegitimate, then so is every government on the face of the Earth.



How do you acquire natural resources through voluntary exchange?  How does a person acquire water rights?  How do oil companies acquire oil rights, especially when it calls for wars and overthrowing democratically, freedom loving Presidents?  

Where on the market does this freedom of exchange happen regarding our natural and limited resource ownership occur?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 15, 2011)

Douger said:


> Antiderivative said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



That's what it's all about.  People seem to think the workers aren't worth anything and the CEOs actually deserve to be paid 500-1000 times what their workers are when the truth is, without the workers there would be no CEO.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> GE paid no taxes last year.
> 
> The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.
> 
> ...


GE paid no corp income taxes because the Obama admin saw to that. GE's promise to further Obama's green energy initiative got GE most favored corp status..Voila! No taxes!.
The federal government has ALWAYS had a spending problem. 
The bean counters tell Capitol Hill that X amount of dollars in revenue is expected over the next ( pick a period). The budgets are then written based on those figures. The problem is no one on Capitol Hill or in the White House ever stops to consider what to do if the money comes up short.
It's almost as though politicians are afraid to go back and say "Sorry, we have a budget shortfall. We will be cutting this and that."
What should occur is if in the event there are revenue issues, no one section of the country is excluded from cuts. Neither would any program. 
If the budget is 5% short, then every item in the budget gets cut 5%. Tough darts. Deal with it.
Thing is the word "cut" is used as a political bludgeon.
Even when a program's INCREASE for the next fiscal year is reduced, those who support said program label the increase reduction as a "cut"...
So for instance if the Federal Dept of Education is looking at a 4% increase instead of a 5% increase the teacher's unions across the country call that a "cut". That's bullshit. An increase is not a cut. But the useful idiots in the MSM go right along with it and report the increase reduction as a cut. Why? Because somebody in DC said it was.
I really despise politicians.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Antiderivative said:
> ...


In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights. I believe Texas is the only exception. Miner rights were by law ceded to resource producing companies such as gas and oil firms.
now, if I buy a home, the water and all minerals under that land belong to me. SO if for some reason I have decided to dig a well and oil starts gushing up to the surface, that oil is mine.
Better example....My brother-in-law went to Ohio Amish country last fall for a deer hunt.
He stayed with Mennonites. These are like Amish Light.
Anyway, these people have small oil rigs right on their properties. It seems that long ago some of the Mennonites accidentally got into a pocket of oil below their land.
These people, the rightful owners of the land also owned the mineral rights because that is how standard real property purchases work.
Please tell me you knew this.
Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless. 
This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Antiderivative said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Don't know what you are taking about...pretty much the only way you can get mineral rights is if you inherit the property.  It's not included in the sale of the property anymore, the government has taken over the mineral rights.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > Antiderivative said:
> ...


Which people? And don't say "the CEO's"...That's a cop out. I'll even go as far to let you post the results of a poll that supports your claim.
BTW, you have it backward. Without business, there are no jobs.
The business creates the need for employment. Not the other way around. This is why labor is indeed a commodity. The actual workers are not, but labor in and of itself is the commodity.
To help you understand....
Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates. 
In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Antiderivative said:
> ...


Nonsense. 
Here's a link to the NC Marketable Title Act....North Carolina Real Property<br/>Marketable Title Act - A Partial Solution to Title Defects
This is a law that makes a distinction of rights on purchases of property re:mineral and other rights.  While mineral rights are not automatically granted with the purchase of real property. Those rights are granted unless there is a mitigating fact. Such as the known existence of value in the minerals located below the surface. So, if a person purchases a real property where valued assets in the form of minerals are known, those rights must be negotiated between the buyer and seller. If the assets are unknown, then the buyer is purchasing the real property and all rights. 
So for instance you offer for sale a real property and unknown to you there is natural gas under the surface. You sell the property as is. Later on, the owner to which you sold the property, accidentally discovers the natural gas and either contracts to harvest it himself or sells the rights to another party. You cannot go back and claim the mineral rights. You sold those rights when you and the buyer agreed to the terms of the sale.
The government has nothing to do with the mineral rights. At least in NC. Texas is a different case. 
My friend's father in law once battled and lost to a small gas company that many years ago bought the mineral rights to the land on which the father in law's house sits.
The gas company decided to take a look at the adjacent land, found recoverable gas and began operations. The rub is the geologist told the father in law that some of the gas was indeed under HIS land. Under Texas law , the gas company had full mineral rights...Once again, no government ownership.
You should check on things before you post. It goes a long way to credibility.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 15, 2011)

Chris said:


> GE paid no taxes last year.



Having a president in your hip pocket really pays off. GE made a good investment in buying Obama.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 15, 2011)

Douger said:


> You make your choice at that moment ( and this moment) as to what you might do.
> Are you a social democrat yet ? Or a fucking Nazi Jew piece of shit like your masters?
> Sit down. read what I wrote, and decide who YOU are.
> Get it ?



Too much meth, dude.

You should cut down.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Douger said:
> ...



Gee, how sweet of you.  People like you...believe the workers aren't worth a living wage.  Doesn't matter that the CEO makes so much more than the workers, only the amount of work you can get out of the workers and the lowest you can pay them.  Smart people realize that the company wouldn't be there without the workers and the workers are worth a living wage, possibly even more than that depending on the profits the company makes.


----------



## Antiderivative (Jun 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights.



Actual wealth comes from production, not ownership.  



> Please tell me you knew this.



Please tell me why you think I am an Amish scholar and hip on their affairs. 



> Oh and if your asking how Exxon/Mobil acquires oil rights in foreign countries..Well now they don't. Most likely the host country simply buys the technology to get the oil out of the ground , pipe it and ship it.Exxon/Mobil like most other oil companies are the makers of the final product. In the past their expertise in exploration and harvesting of oil was used in exchange for those rights. The company pays royalties to the country in which the oil is located. Without the ability to harvest a natural resource such as oil, the rights are worthless.
> This is really simple stuff which is easily referenced through search engines.



Except when they start foreign wars of aggression and overthrow nascent democracies to increase their profit margins.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 15, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I know where you're coming from Sheila but we have to separate compassion from politics from sense of entitlement from economics because those are four entirely separate things.

Compassion is on a personal level.  You see somebody in trouble or distress and you do what you can to help.

Sense of entitlement is the belief that one should be able to have what somebody else has and the government should make that other person give it to him or her.

Politics is advancement of oneself or personal goals through persuasion or forcibly requiring others via government or votes to give us what we want.

And economics is the perceived or anticipated results of private commerce, industry, trade, investment, and management plus government regulation and mandates.

There is no compassion when immediate or short term solutions result in much larger and longer duration of pain or problems.   If you cost many people jobs or income via forcibly raising wages for others, that is not compassion.

There is no morality or righteousness in forcing one person who acquired his/her wealth ethically and legally to furnish it to another whose only claim to it is a sense of entitlement.  Most see that as legalized theft at best; as a new form of slavery at worst.

Politics that engages government in the process of using one taxpayer's property in order to buy votes or influence from another is the most corrupting process in all our society.

And in economics, labor is a commodity just like everything else involved in the cost of providing goods and services.  The law of supply and demand applies to labor too.  Just like energy or raw products, when labor is plentiful and easily acquired, it will be worth less than when there is full employment and business has to compete for good, competent, reliable employees.  Artificially increase wages in a recession or slow down, and you will decrease available employment for all.

The emphasis should be on encouraging growth and expansion in business to obtain full employment and force companies to compete for qualified people.  That invariably will also increase wages.  Some will still have to hire in at entry level minimum wage, but the good ones won't stay there for long.  And the overall effect will be positive for everybody.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You play a tune with one note. It's the sound one makes when they are whining.
The value of a worker is directly proportional to their ability to perform the job for which they were hired at a wage that is appropriate for the position. 
You make assumptions based on your emotions.
I am a business owner and an employee of another business. 
My value to my employer is based on cost and performance. I strive to improve my skill set which includes finding ways to operate the business as efficiently as possible while keeping costs as low as possible. 
In my own business, I will only accept work that will allow me to turn a profit.

Margins are tight due to competition. So I must keep my costs down. 
Here's an example of how your notion that if there were no workers the company would not exist is false.
Let's say the XYZ Widget company decides they need to be more competitive. The management looks for ways to get their product to market cheaper and faster. If XYZ does not do this, they will face the wrath of their investors.
So, XYZ finds these automated computerized machines to produce their product at a fraction of the cost. XYZ decides to lease the machines and train some of their workers to run them. They pace the machines at a small plant in another state. The new operation is a success. XYZ decides the new equipment is the way to go.....Now XYZ needs far fewer employees. Those with the aptitude to learn the new technology are offered the opportunity to stay on with XYZ. The other people are no longer needed and are offered severance packages and thanked for their service. 
The company dictates to the labor market the level of employment that is needed. Not the other way around. 
On a smaller scale, a construction company owner and his partner tired of the hassles of finding good people to do the work, become frustrated with the entire process and the general attitude of the construction labor market decide to forgo hiring any more employees and also lay off the ones they have. The partners decide to do the work themselves. The company exists without the labor.
Once again, labor requires business. Business does not require labor.


----------



## snjmom (Jun 15, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You are confusing wage earners/employees with labor. In your example, you have replaced human labor with machine labor and the partners labor is labor. 

Basic economic scenerio. Man catches one fish every three days with his hands. The fish is  consumption good.  Man fashions spear using Land, the fallen branches of a tree that no one claims ownership to, Labor, and Enterprise. The spear is now capital. Man spears 3 fish a day, increasing the production of a consumption good. 

Without consumers, there is no business. If the consumers are too broke to buy your product because you have eliminated all labor, which is what consumers bring to the market, or reduced it to subsistence levels then you better be in the subsistence business.



> Sense of entitlement is the belief that one should be able to have what somebody else has and the government should make that other person give it to him or her.



Or the sense that because you received it, you earned it.



> Let's say Home Depot and Lowes are building stores which will be located within the same community. Each store mgment wants the best applicants. So the managements will set their labor rates higher to attract the best candidates.
> In effect labor, not the people themselves, but labor for those two stores is a commodity.



No longer true. Management will hire illegals before it raises wages.


----------



## editec (Jun 16, 2011)

Wealth WILL redistribute.

That is inevitable.

The question, the ONLY question worth asking ourselves is this:

How do we ALLOW that to happen?

Do we *pretend *that we live in a truly capitalist system where market forces are the ONLY way that it is done, or do we finally admit to ourselves that *our system has never truly been capitalistic* and acknowledge that *some of us are on top of heap mostly due to history over which we personally had no control?*

This is, and always has been the debate of civil societies.

How to share the benefits and responsibilities of societyin a way serves the people _and their society?_


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 16, 2011)

snjmom said:


> Or the sense that because you received it, you earned it.



Or the sense that because someone else has it, and you don't feel they should or that their efforts are as 'hard' as yours, you are owed it at their expense thru a redistribution system


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 16, 2011)

editec said:


> Wealth WILL redistribute.
> 
> That is inevitable.
> 
> ...



We HAVE been in a truly capitalistic system so far as government not meddling with redistribution of wealth.  That started changing under Teddy Roosevelt and has been snowballing ever since resulting in the economy that we are experiencing right now.

The confusion seems to be in the definition intended by "General Welfare".

Some seem to think that gives the government license to take what Citizen A earns and give it to Citizen B who did nothing to merit it.

I think the Founders intended it to be government promotion or initiatives that benefit rich and poor alike without prejudice and without respect for who needs something and who doesn't.

For instance roads from point A to point B are appropriate projects for government as it is unfeasible for everybody to building their own road.  So the road that is built benefits all, rich and poor alike.  If the road is primarily to benefit Citizen B and not everybody, then in my opinion, it is not a project government should be involved in.


----------



## Wiseacre (Jun 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Wealth WILL redistribute.
> ...




If I remember right, shortly after our founding the federal gov't looked at the issue of federal funding for building a canal in upstate NY I think.   Not sure if it was the Erie Canal, but anyway they decidied against it because it only benefited some citizens rather than all.   Which should be the primary concern at that level it seems to me.   We gotta get out of the business of deciding winners and losers.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 16, 2011)

Correct Wiseacre.  Up to T. Roosevelt, every President and Congress pretty much resistedthe temptation to use the people's treasury for any form of charity, benevolence, or limited benefit.

Our Founders had a lot to say on that:



> "Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. "
> -- John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774





> "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
> -- Benjamin Franklin






> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."
> -- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, [1825]





> "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
> -- James Madison





> "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
> -- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]





> "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
> -- Benjamin Franklin



And beyond:



> "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
> -- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]





> "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
> -- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.


----------



## Wiseacre (Jun 16, 2011)

Too bad we went off track, huh Foxy?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 16, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Too bad we went off track, huh Foxy?



I think its too bad how the values, concepts, and inspiration of the Founders has been chipped away and eroded by those who hold a different view of virtue .  Like the ancient civiliztions, they look not to themselves for strength and prosperity but rather clamor for a king to protect, save, and feed them.  And the more they are able to transfer power and property to the 'king', the more helpless and needy they become.

The first quote I posted by John Adams has proved to be absolutely prophetic.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 16, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > In most states, when one buys real property, they are also buying all mineral and water rights.
> ...


Non sequitur....Go bake cookies or stuff a clipper ship in a bottle. Yes the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell has access to the "button"...Facepalm


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 16, 2011)

snjmom said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


In the example of the construction company yes the owners do the work. The OP's point was that the construction company would not exist without labor. By that the OP means hired help.
No the sense of entitlement is exactly what it is. Those who think they are either owed a living( job) or the largess of those who produce. While you were out, "entitlement" has taken on a new meaning. Entitlement applies to those who are takers. Learn it. Live it. 
Home Depot, Lowe's and other major retailers DO NOT hire illegals. So you can stow that nonsense.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 16, 2011)

Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability.  They fall into two categories:

1)  Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.

2)  Those who are willing to get by on much left that seems certain than risk that they could provide for themselves better if the government got out of it.

I recommend the book Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.






Excerpt of Lew Rockwell review:


> . . . .when examining the creation of the world&#8217;s welfare states, in the latter half of the book, Woods provides much raw data, and then the sensible state-ignored conclusions which arose from these detailed researches:
> 
> &#8220;He [Charles Murray, social scientist] wanted to know *why it should be that &#8216;the number of people living in poverty stopped declining just as the public-assistance program budgets and the rate of increase in those budgets were highest&#8217;.* He went on to explain why, counterintuitive as it may be, we should in fact expect this result.&#8221;
> 
> ...



Think about that.  For ever tax dollar that gets to the 'poor', the government takes four.

To me this is immoral and indefensible.

There has to be a better way.


----------



## Chris (Jun 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability.  They fall into two categories:
> 
> 1)  Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.
> 
> ...



This is completely bogus.

There were many more people living in poverty in 1933 than today.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2011)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability.  They fall into two categories:
> ...







Mmmm, not exactly.  It is actually quite difficult to find the exact numbers for 1933, 25% unemployment is commonly used so I will use that as the poverty percentage.  Those who actually had jobs actually did pretty well because the cost of goods and services dropped significantly during the depression so if you had money you could get a lot with it.  The current rate (well 2009 the most recent year I could find) the rate is 14.1 percent.  I suspect it is higher now.  

The poverty line also means different things today.  In the 30's if you lived below the poverty line you had to go to the soup lines for your meal.  Nowadays those at the poverty line pull down an average of 560 per month if they have children.  They also get Section 8 housing assistance, WIC, and other programs I can't name off the top of my head.

In one news story i saw of a welfare family in New Orleans I saw a nice large flat screen TV on the wall.  So poverty is far different today then it was then.





National Poverty Center | University of Michigan


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 17, 2011)

Yes, poverty is all relative and the definitions changed many times during the 20th Century to present.

The bottom line is that labor is a market driven commodity.  If you have too many people looking for work, labor will be worth less than when there are few people looking for work.  When the government elects to artificially set labor via minimum wage or requiring union wages for government contracts, etc., it throws everything out of balance and it is usually the 'poor' who will suffer most.

There is no unalienable right to a job or to a 'living wage'.  There is an unalienable right to take advantage of whatever is available to train and educate ourselves to make a good living.  The more we look to government to do that for us, the less opportunity overall there will be.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Jul 22, 2011)

What does James Madison-  &#8220;Father of the Constitution&#8221; have to say 
_
James Madison-  James Madison letter to James Robertson

&#8220;With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. 
 To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of
 proofs was not contemplated by its creators.&#8221;​_


----------



## ReginaG (Aug 4, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> If someone is truly deserving of welfare then fine, but someone who is lazy and milks the system they can fly a kite.



you definitely got it right.


----------



## editec (Aug 4, 2011)

When you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.

Poverty knows NO morality.

Your home defensive arsenals  will not solve that reality.

Equitable economic systems will.


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 4, 2011)

Redistribution of wealth violates the 13th amendment.


----------



## editec (Aug 4, 2011)

We can have a welfare state or we can create a system with economic justice.

Since welfare is cheaper (for the winners of capitalism) than economic justice, we have gone down the road to a welfare state.

Of course now we can cut off all welfare, but we're going to need a police state to cope with the fallout of THAT decision.

Poeple with_ nothing to lose_ are a dangerous breed, folks.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 4, 2011)

I just love it when people who make big bucks, mostly off the backs of the poor workers, talk about "morality" and wealth redistribution.  Face it, if they had morals, we wouldn't need wealth redistribution, the poorest paid worker among us would make a living wage.

There are a few "very few" business owners who recognize that they wouldn't be where they are without their workers.  They pay them and compensate them accordingly.   Too bad the CEO's of the big corporations who make 500 to 1000 times what their workers make didn't attend the same business school as those few business owners.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2011)

editec said:


> We can have a welfare state or we can create a system with economic justice.
> 
> Since welfare is cheaper (for the winners of capitalism) than economic justice, we have gone down the road to a welfare state.
> 
> ...



And yet there was a time, not all that long ago in America, in which many more people were poor by today's standards but there was much much less crime, violence, and anger among the population.  This would suggest that there is little correlation between poverty and crime.  It would suggest that there is correlation in a sense of entitlement that it is our right to be provided with what we do not have and that it is okay to force others to give it to us.  And that in my opinion is why redistribution of wealth through any other process than voluntary charity and a free market system is immoral.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > We can have a welfare state or we can create a system with economic justice.
> ...



And the highest tax rate during that time was 70%, minimum wage had the highest spending power in history and we didn't have the huge income gap we have now.  

You don't think the workers are entitled to a decent share of the profits of the company?  How dare they believe that...

In fact, Americans are having children at replacement value and if it weren't for our huge influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, the lowest paid workers would be making a living wage, supply and demand.  Add to that the exporting of our jobs and our factories and we're in a world of hurt...it's enough to make anybody angry.


----------



## jillian (Aug 4, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



i think it's terribly immoral to redistribute wealth to the top 1%


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability.  They fall into two categories:
> 
> 1)  Those who don't care if others suffer so long as the government gives them theirs.
> 
> ...



There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage, eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration, problem solved.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 4, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability.  They fall into two categories:
> ...



What the hell is a "living wage"?


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> What the hell is a "living wage"?



It's 'minimum wage' ++

Because, you know, who want's 'minimum'?


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2011)

ON second thought, why should screw around with a 'living' wage. We might as well shoot for a 'fabulously wealthy' wage.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 4, 2011)

dblack said:


> ON second thought, why should screw around with a 'living' wage. We might as well shoot for a 'fabulously wealthy' wage.



Hat Tip!!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Still considering the 'king' that some Americans seem to prefer to individual initiative, I think somewhere along the way they lost faith in their own ability.  They fall into two categories:
> ...



We already have whole groups within our population who are essentially among the permanently unemployed because they have no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills.  It is hard enough now for those who want to break out of that cycle to convince somebody to take a chance on them at the current minimum wage so they can gain experience, develop a work ethic, and/or develop marketable skills and make themselves valuable enough to an employer to merit a 'living wage'.

Put the minimum wage at 'living wage' level, whatever that might be deemed to be, and you shut more and more of the 'poor' out of the labor market altogether.  Most especially this will be true in places like New York City or parts of California and elsewhere that have very high costs of living.  It costs way more to live in San Francisco than it costs to live in Lubbock TX.  How do you propose to even establish a 'living wage' with such wide variations between various parts of the country?

In a free market system, labor is any other commodity and it is to everybody's benefit that market forces determine its value.  Those who do the drill to make their labor more valuable will earn more.  Those who don't do what is necessary to make their labor a desirable commodity will earn less.  To artificially put price controls or subsidies on labor have the same effect as putting price controls or subsidies on any other product.  And whenever any product is priced out of the market, it collapses or the government steps in to prop it up which becomes a viscious cycle.

I agree that enforcement of immigration laws would help enormously in areas that have large numbers of illegals.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 4, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Following your example, those who work and pay their taxes can draw their unemployment benefits when they lose their jobs. Great.

I'm curious, out of 50 million on food stamps, how many contributed into the system so they can draw from it? Ball park...


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 4, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Not moral.  After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery?  Read Mises.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 4, 2011)

dblack said:


> ON second thought, why should screw around with a 'living' wage. We might as well shoot for a 'fabulously wealthy' wage.



No shit huh?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



Another active thread is something like "A Question Conservatives Won't Answer" or some such as that.  What you hit on could be entitled "A Questions Liberals Won't Answer" or some such as that.

I have long maintained that it can be a moral and virtuous act act for Citizen A to voluntarily help out Citizen B.  In my repertoire of definitions, that is what charity is.

However, when Citizen A is required to donate property or labor to help out Citizen B, in my repertoire of definitions, that is one definition of what slavery is.

How is that moral?


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Another active thread is something like "A Question Conservatives Won't Answer" or some such as that.  What you hit on could be entitled "A Questions Liberals Won't Answer" or some such as that.
> 
> I have long maintained that it can be a moral and virtuous act act for Citizen A to voluntarily help out Citizen B.  In my repertoire of definitions, that is what charity is.
> 
> ...



Ain't it grand? It's like 'outsourcing' charity. You can give to the poor, and do it with other people's money! Best of both worlds.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 4, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
> ...



Not in eyes of thieves.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 4, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Only if they are forced to work.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 4, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage



Well hell, why not raise it more than that?  If a minimum wage is a good idea, why not $100 per hour...or $1000?  Heck, make it a million dollars and hour!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2011)

Ame®icano;3955288 said:
			
		

> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



I can actually see a truly modest minimum wage to ensure that nobody is coerced into working for nothing.  In my opinion, however, the minimum wage was to ensure that there would not be slave labor but it was never intended to be a so-called 'living wage'.  It was intended to provide a modest compensation while people gained experience, learned a trade, developed a work ethic, and acquired marketable skills.  People who do that don't ever stay at minimum wage because their labor usually steadily gains in value and they can command a higher wage.

Require employers to pay people with no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills a 'living wage' and I guarantee those people won't ever have a chance to get an education, develop a work ethic, acquire references and marketable skills.  Or, there will be even less incentive for kids to stay in school or make something of themselves.  If they can merit a 'living wage' for doing nothing, that's exactly what a lot of them will choose to do.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Ame®icano;3955288 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once upon a time, mw was a living wage.  You could afford your own apartment, to go to college part time and to buy a car.....

Now you claim those same people have no education, no work ethic, no references, no marketable skills, what happened????

My brother was one of those people (I was late, by the time I started working mw lost it's spending power).  I spent time in the berry fields, I worked as a maid, I babysat, I did whatever it took to make money and you think I somehow have less education, less work ethic than my brother simply because I was born later?  When mw didn't have the spending power it did for my brother born 7 years earlier?

Face it, greed is what's wrong with our society.  The top 21% of our country has seen their income grow by more that 250% since the 70's while the rest of us have seen our wages stagnate and drop.  Work ethic has NOTHING to do with it.  Greed has everything to do with it.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 4, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage
> ...



I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2011)

I think I could push for one change regarding wealth redistribution, it would be to require that it be done honestly. If it is morally justifiable, and if those campaigning for it have the courage of their convictions, they shouldn't hide the practice behind obscuring facades like income tax or minimum wages laws.

The point of taxes is to raise funds for government, not redistribute wealth. If your goal is to take from the rich and give to the poor - just do it. Pass laws that straight-out confiscate money from people you don't think deserve it and give it to those you think do. I might still be opposed to such a plan, but at least I'd have more respect for that than the usual shell games we a play. Plus, it wouldn't pollute our tax code.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 4, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You just don't get it.  Why should you be able to force a man to not work?  That's exactly the result of ANY minimum wage.  Older Americans, the uneducated, young workers...many of whom are perfectly willing to work are prevent from doing so by your government meddling.  Not everyone wanting to work has a family to support.  Some just want to earn a few extra dollars.  You're position ends up driving those willing to work away from a job and on the dole.  Of course, I understand that once they're addicted to government handouts, they will vote for the re-distributionists but I find the whole idea disgusting.  Shame on you.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 4, 2011)

manifold said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No, it's not, since have nots didn't pay into this particular "public" service.

Btw, greatest value from this service has the fire station.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 4, 2011)

You can legislate a minimum wage.

You cannot legislate employers deciding that it's too expensive to keep employees.

You cannot legislate that businesses hire people.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 4, 2011)

People are working jobs that pay wages below a decent living. Make such jobs illegal and people will be better off.

Reality?  People are _unemployed_.

Welcome to the fallacy of minimum wage.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 4, 2011)

Chris said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Nobody is forbidding people who work at McD's to manage hedge funds on their own.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;3955288 said:
> ...



Back off friend. I did NOT make any sort of assumption related to you, your brother, or anybody else.  Please read what I did say more carefully.

Kudos to your brother if he was able to live on minimum wage.  I have worked for minimum wage many MANY times over my now quite lengthy working career and I certainly was not able to afford an apartment, a car, college etc. on minimum wage and I bet I'm a far sight older than your brother.  I, however, have worked two and three minimum wage jobs or lots and lots of overtime to make ends meet.  I have also at times worked long hours at far less than minimum wage and was darn happy to have the work.  I am happy now to have arrived at a point that my labor is worth enough that I didn't have to work full time in the years that I wound down toward retirement.  That was always my goal.  To make my labor worth much more than minimum wage.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2011)

Ame®icano;3955855 said:
			
		

> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Not to mention that McDonalds has been paying well above minimum wage in most places because they can't attract dependable staff otherwise.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 4, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Not to mention that McDonalds has been paying well above minimum wage in most places because they can't attract dependable staff otherwise.



Experience has shown that McDonalds apparently has an intelligence test for applicants.  If they pass they're not hired.  Doubt it?  Ask one to make change without relying on the cash register to calculate it.  OK, the older ones might remember how......but most will be afraid to do it for fear of provoking the younger workers and being abused for having done so.

In one state, in particular, most of the restaurants in the chain are operated by one company who appear to believe sanitation is optional.

McDonalds needs to hire more inspectors and arm them.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 4, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



More than 70% of those making minimum wage are adults.  Why do you think someone's work is worth less because they don't have a family to support?  Don't you think people should make what they "earn"?


You remind me of my dad, one of his worst times.  I came home from school and mowed the lawn for the first time of the summer, using a push lawnmower.  He came home and said if I trimmed it, he'd pay me $2.00.  Mind you, this is when you used trimmers to trim the lawn.  I did.  One week later a local neighborhood boy came by with his power mower and my dad paid him $5.00 for mowing the lawn and I still had to trim it, but of course, he was a boy so he needs to make more.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2011)

Antiderivative said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > "Earned" means acquired through voluntary exchange.
> ...



Crony capitalism is what Democrats have been trying to implement since Woodrow Wilson.  Don't blame it on those who want to eliminate government interference in the market.



Antiderivative said:


> How do you declare ownership over limited resources that benefit mankind as a whole?



All economic resources are limited.  If they weren't limited, they wouldn't be a subject for economics.  Air is about the only natural substance that falls into this category.

It doesn't matter how you declare ownership, so long as you do it.  Once ownership is declared, then rules need to be established to allow for the owners to dispose of and control their property.


----------



## westwall (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...







We don't.  However, the minimum wage was never meant to support a family (or even a single person) as a living wage.  Before I started college I worked two full time jobs to pay for my tuition.  Then when I had actually started college I still worked a full time job to help pay the bills.  Both jobs sucked the big wazoo but I was looking for the payoff at the end.

So here's a question for you.  Is it proper to pay someone who has worked hard for their education (whether it be in a college or trade school) the same as a person who hasn't done anything to improve themselves?


BTW your Dad was a jerk!


----------



## jgarden (Aug 5, 2011)

> If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further.* But I think that people at the high end - people like myself - should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it.*
> 
> - Warren Buffett
> 
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/warren_buffett.html





> The 400 of us pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. *If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent. *
> 
> - Warren Buffett speaking at a $4,600-a-seat political fundraiser in New York, as quoted in "Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary", Times Online, June 28, 2007.
> 
> Warren Buffett - Wikiquote





> There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.
> 
> - Warren Buffett, New York Times, November 26, 2006.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html


*Warren Buffett is an atheist and also appears to one of the few wealthy people in America who actually possesses a "social conscience!"*


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 5, 2011)




----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 5, 2011)

tallmike said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > The fucking government forced the lending in the first place.
> ...



Well whats done is done.... Too bad the fucking progressive socialists have learned absolutely nothing.... As a matter of fact they're still hung up on the notion that everything under the sun is a "right" and its governments responsibility to provide whatever they want for them.

Of course if you object tho their dumb shit greedy insanity you're just a racist that "hates everyone." Yeah, little kids pull that bullshi.... when they don't get their way they stop feet and make absurd irrational accusations.


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 5, 2011)

> So? Blaming it on politicians who are no longer in power really does not do anything.



Not true!  Accurate history is important for many reasons!


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 5, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> *Morality of Wealth Redistribution*
> 
> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?



Yeah.....everyone-*else* needs lessons on _morality_ from....



> ....the *1%ers/high-roller$*.








*


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 5, 2011)

Lakhota said:


> > So? Blaming it on politicians who are no longer in power really does not do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true!  *Accurate history* is important for many reasons!


....And, is *NEVER* _wasted_ on....



> ....the *Teabaggers*.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 5, 2011)

The T said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


....Like paying their stockholders....with what's left-*over*....*after* the *mega-bonu$e$* have been paid-out.

Isn't a good/profitable-business supposed to generate it's *OWN* working-capital*??????*

​


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 5, 2011)

Bad news, my accountant said you have no more money to redistribute.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

jillian said:


> i think it's terribly immoral to redistribute wealth to the top 1%



Then stop doing it.

Tell Obama to stop handing hundreds of billions to JP Morgan - Chase, Goldman Sachs, General Electric, General Motors, et al. Tell your Messiah® to stop merging corporations with the federal government as he is doing with Obamacare, making the IRS the enforcement arm of Kaiser and Blue Cross - the fascist fuck.

The hate sites that do your thinking are heavy on hyperbole, but absent any fact.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> There is, raise the minimum wage to a living wage, eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration, problem solved.



What do you suggest for a minimum wage? $75,000 a year, perhaps?

What about a maximum wage? Do you support that as well?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Not moral.  After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery?  Read Mises.



They will no more read Mises than they will read Rand or Rothbard.

These are people who get their news from Jon Stewart; even if they DID read economically sound literature, they wouldn't grasp it. The sad fact is the the American left is built on a foundation of poorly educated people with low IQ's. 

People always think I'm just insulting the left, but I'm not.

The fact is that leftism is the manifestation of the inability to process information in a logical and rational manner, reaching a reasoned conclusion. Leftist emote rather than think, because thinking eludes them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I can actually see a truly modest minimum wage to ensure that nobody is coerced into working for nothing.



I don't agree.

If someone is coerced into working, then a crime has been committed and it should be dealt with as a criminal act.

In a free society, the decision of what a person is willing to purchase the time of another, and the price the seller is willing to take for his/her time, is purely a decision of the parties involved. If the buyer doesn't offer enough, then the buyer is free to refuse the offer and not work for that person. Just as if the corner store wants too much for a can of tomatoes, I am free to refuse to buy them. If I offer less than the asking price, the store is free to refuse my offer.

In a free society, trades are between the buyer and the seller - kings, princes and presidents are not part of the deal.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> I'd settle for raising it to have the same spending power it did in 1968.....why do you think today's mw workers deserve less than you did?



Why not raise it to what you make now?


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I think someone's work is worth what another is willing to pay for it.  EVERYONE should have the chance to earn what they can.  Your minimum wage prevents many from having any chance to work...and that's especially true for the most vulnerable in our society.  I find that particularly cruel.

I really don't give a shit what your dad paid you to mow the lawn.  A decent child would not have expected any pay for such chores.  Entitled much?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Yes, when they do the work as agreed, people should be paid what they agreed to work for.   But some work is simply worth more than other work is worth.

If I am looking for an auditor to work for me, I need somebody with good math and computer skills, strong personal integrity, and a lot of experience or know how in a lot of different things.  But I will receive enough for the finished product to make a profit for myself plus pay somebody very well to do the audit.  I am willing and able to pay very well to attract a quality employee.

If I am looking for somebody to pick up the apples that fell off the tree in the back yard, that person isn't going to need much in the way of skills and it is a service I don't have to have.  I usually offer about $10.00.  If the kid next door takes all day to pick up those apples he gets $10 which is poor wages but that was his choice.  If he does it in 20 minutes, he still makes $10 which is a very good wage.  Piece work generally works like that and is in no way based on minimum wage.

If the labor is more than the profit or benefit I expect to net for it, or costs me more than I can afford, the job won't be offered.   And the worker demanding more than I am willing to pay winds up with nothing.

Put minimum waqe at a higher rate than the job is worth, and the job won't be offered.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Not moral.  After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery?  Read Mises.
> ...


There was a study somewhere that compared emotion vs reason of different ideologies. Libertarians used reason at the highest levels, then conservatives, and then liberals, who where the most emotional. It all makes sense really. Women are more emotional in general (this is not a bad thing, but its true), and most a liberals, many are conservative, and a handful are libertarian.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



If they are doing the same job, you bet it's proper to pay them the same.

As for my dad, he had his faults, but he was a good man.  He enlisted in the service and retired an officer, do you know how few people do that?  After he retired, he went back to school.  He had 3 careers, Air Force, Accountant, and college Professor.  He was able to retire from all 3 of those careers.  That's a self made man for you.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Not moral.  After all, how is forcing some men to labor on behalf of others not slavery?  Read Mises.
> ...



1)  I'm not on the left, I'm a moderate...on other subjects, the liberals are calling me a neocon.

2)  My IQ is 140 based on a test before I entered school, what's yours?

3)  True capitalism doesn't allow unfettered immigrations to bring in low wage workers to compete with out own, doesn't provide $billions to the wealthiest in our society responsible for the debacle of our economy and does allow unions to ensure that the workers have a say.

It's funny how people only want capitalism when it benefits them.  Capitalism would have let all those stupid banks close due to their own stupid decisions.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Why do you think they deserve more?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

Ame®icano;3960772 said:
			
		

> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


I asked you first!


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Ame®icano;3955855 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tim Horton in Alberta offering $12/hour and having hard time finding workers... And not just them, READ MORE.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Ame®icano;3960772 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, question was addressed to eflatminor, so you asked him first.

I asked you why do you think they deserve more... whatever more is?


----------



## Modbert (Aug 5, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> We sure do here in Louisiana... the Feds rape us for billions and then give it to fuckwad blue states so they can make their transfer payments.



Looks like to me it's the opposite:

United States Federal Tax Dollars -

$1.78 received for every $1 paid in taxes to the federal government.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 5, 2011)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Food Stamps is a great example of a failed program.



Moody's would disagree, but hey, what do they know huh?


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 5, 2011)

Ame®icano;3960856 said:
			
		

> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;3960772 said:
> ...


Nobody deserves more or less than any point in time. They deserve what their service is worth to the employer. If they do not like what the employer is willing to pay, they look somewhere else. If the employer cannot find any workers, he will have to raise his price. And that is what McDonald's is doing. Nobody is entitled to anything. You work for it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 5, 2011)

Ame®icano;3960810 said:
			
		

> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;3955855 said:
> ...



Well Canada doesn't have a fearless leader who thinks anybody or any nation can spend itself rich.   All the countries who pulled in their horns and went on austerity programs are pulling out of the recession or recovering.  Those who did not:  Spain, Italy, Greece--are floundering just as we are.  The difference is there isn't anybody to bail us out but us and our government seems determined to keep policies in place to keep us from doing that.

McDonalds and all companies like them prosper by offering a product people like to eat or drink at a price that 'feels' affordable.  They do that by name familiarity and keeping their costs to obtain, prepare, and serve their products as low as possible and still show a good profit.  Those costs include the labor.  If they were required to pay a 'living wage' to all their employees, they would likely soon go out of business and there would be no wages of any amount for anybody.

People who work at McDonalds are mostly kids and part timer adults who want to earn some spending money, are saving up for a major purchase, or are supplementing other income.  There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 5, 2011)

Wealth doesn't make a person more or less moral.


----------



## Modbert (Aug 5, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Well Canada doesn't have a fearless leader who thinks anybody or any nation can spend itself rich.   All the countries who pulled in their horns and went on austerity programs are pulling out of the recession or recovering.  Those who did not:  Spain, Italy, Greece--are floundering just as we are.  The difference is there isn't anybody to bail us out but us and our government seems determined to keep policies in place to keep us from doing that.



It's funny you mention Canada.

Canada



> Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper&#8217;s C$40 billion ($32.6 billion) plan to spark economic growth may be enough for opposition lawmakers to support his budget, keeping the minority Conservative government in power.
> 
> Harper suspended Parliament last month to keep rival parties from toppling him after lawmakers rejected a plan they said had too little stimulus. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, whose party holds the balance of power in Parliament, will say today whether he&#8217;ll back the budget, which includes C$84.9 billion in deficits over five years.





> Harper&#8217;s stimulus will boost the nation&#8217;s gross domestic product by 1.4 percentage points by the end of 2010, according to the budget document. The move represents the* second-largest stimulus package* as a share of output among Group of Seven countries, after the U.S., according to the budget.



Bachmann: Canada Did 'No Stimulus' (Oh Really?) | TPMDC



> If we make further adjustments, using IMF data for each country from the year 2008 for purchasing-power parity, per-capita GDP, and the much larger population of the United States,* this would work out as very roughly equal to a stimulus of over US$360 billion if it were done here.*
> 
> That stimulus is still less than half of the $787 billion stimulus under Obama -- but it's a whole lot more than no stimulus at all. And it should be noted, Canada did not have a need for as extensive a package of stimulus spending.



Furthermore:



> In fact, the recession did not hit Canada anywhere near as severely as the U.S. -- after all, the economic collapse in many ways started here, and other countries were caught up in the financial hangover. In light of that, it must also be noted that one reason for Canada's resilience was having years of *strict banking regulations*, which fostered a more stable financial system. As the Economist reported in 2010:
> 
> Jim Flaherty, the finance minister, attributes Canada's strong performance to its "boring" financial system*. Prodded by tight regulation, the banks were much more conservative in their lending than their American counterparts. *Those that did dabble in subprime loans were able to withdraw quickly. This prudence kept a lid on house prices while those in America were soaring, but it paid off when the bust hit.



Reality doesn't quite go with your talking points.


----------



## hippie2049 (Aug 5, 2011)

1. Humans are social are social animals. Social animals live cooperatively. Social animals display social dominance. One manifestation of social hierarchy in humans is government.

2. Government conducts the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).

3. U.S. tax policy seems to rest on the idea of the social contract.The social contract basically means that because we are social creatures, who will all reap certain benefits from certain government services, taxation to provide these services is necessary and just.

Taxation is the cost of living and benefiting from society. Those who are the most successful in society benefit the most by living in society and ought to bear the highest burden. 

The above paragraph is also why libertarianism fails.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2011)

hippie2049 said:


> 1. Humans are social are social animals. Social animals live cooperatively. Social animals display social dominance. One manifestation of social hierarchy in humans is government.
> 
> 2. Government conducts the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
> 
> ...



Of course, your post is total bullshit.  Libertarianism doesn't fail.  It has never been tried.  However, government fails at almost everything it tries.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

hippie2049 said:


> Those who are the most successful in society benefit the most by living in society.



Can you explain, using logic and reason please, why you believe that statement is true?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> 1)  I'm not on the left, I'm a moderate...



Do you consider yourself more or less moderate than Mao Tse Tung?



> 2)  My IQ is 140 based on a test before I entered school, what's yours?



26,319,407,128

(Hey, it's the interwebz!)



> 3)  True capitalism doesn't allow unfettered immigrations to bring in low wage workers to compete with out own,



Capitalism is an economic system. Immigration is unrelated.  



> doesn't provide $billions to the wealthiest in our society responsible for the debacle of our economy



Have you ever had an introductory economics course? You have odd delusions as to how the market works and what mechanisms are at play.



> and does allow unions to ensure that the workers have a say.



Unions, like corporations, are inclined towards trusts. Trusts are damaging to the market. One of the few legitimate roles of the state is to constrain coercive elements. Coercive trusts, such as the AFL/CIO must be constrained in a free country. Unions that are within a company are not objectionable, no more than corporations which operate as a company. 



> It's funny how people only want capitalism when it benefits them.



It's funny that you have no grasp whatsoever of economics, not capitalism.



> Capitalism would have let all those stupid banks close due to their own stupid decisions.



Yes, it would - and we should have. Bailing them out was a Keynesian, not Capitalist, effort.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> > Capitalism would have let all those stupid banks close due to their own stupid decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would - and we should have. Bailing them out was a Keynesian, not Capitalist, effort.



Thank you!  What he said


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Can you explain, using logic and reason please, why you believe that statement is true?



Ummm, someone who has 40+ years of heavy LSD use, probably isn't going to provide a lot of logic and reason.

I'm just sayin....


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 5, 2011)

hippie2049 said:


> 1. Humans are social are social animals. Social animals live cooperatively. Social animals display social dominance. One manifestation of social hierarchy in humans is government.
> 
> 2. Government conducts the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
> 
> ...


1. Yes, and government is a manifestation of people trying to get from others through force what they cannot get themselves through free exchange.

2. Incredibly vague. 

3. US tax policy rests on the idea of the Constitution that specifically lists what those services are. And the vast majority of what government does today is not listed at all as those services.

As for your last statement, it is wrong because what you wrote was a) not a paragraph but a list and b)not a critique of libertarianism in any way.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> 1. Yes, and government is a manifestation of people trying to get from others through force what they cannot get themselves through free exchange.
> 
> 2. Incredibly vague.
> 
> ...



See my post #860...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 5, 2011)

hippie2049 said:


> 1. Humans are social are social animals. Social animals live cooperatively. Social animals display social dominance. One manifestation of social hierarchy in humans is government.
> 
> 2. Government conducts the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
> 
> ...



Hippie, are you tripping on micro dots or blotter as you post this?


----------



## CoolBreeze (Aug 5, 2011)

Allowing people to live off of the toil of those who work for a living is the equivalent of the plantation owner living off the toil of the slaves he/she owned.  It is the addage of you earn the bread and we will eat it for you.  In a nation where slavery was outlawed and is deemed evil, allowing someone to live off the work of others for the the reason than that person does not want to work is that of the slave owner, only the slave is the one that is eating the bread.  Both are evil in their intent (taking from the productive to support the non-productive) should not be permitted.  This in noway shoud be construed as saying that those who need help, ie the elderly and the injured and the mentally and physically deficient should not be helped.  For those who can not work to earn a living, society as a whole has an obligation to help those who can not help themselves.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

Ame®icano;3960856 said:
			
		

> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;3960772 said:
> ...



I think they deserve just as much, adjusted for inflation.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Ame®icano;3960856 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And if our government hadn't increased  immigration, McDonald's et al would be paying a whole lot more.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > 1)  I'm not on the left, I'm a moderate...
> ...



I took both macro and micro economics...


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Ame®icano;3960856 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest.  Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work?  Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?


----------



## dblack (Aug 5, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest.  Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work?  Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?



I'm sure they'd still qualify for military 'work'.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

dblack said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest.  Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work?  Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?
> ...



Perhaps that's what she has in mind.  Let's hear what she has to say...


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 5, 2011)

dblack said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > There are individuals whose personal circumstances, such as lack of education, experience or intelligence, prevent them from qualifying for a minimum wage job...a lot more individuals if we raise the minimum wage as you suggest.  Do you also believe those individuals should be prevented from ANY work?  Should those folks simply shut up and starve...or are you looking to increase the number of citizens on the dole?
> ...



Red alert:  They would not.


----------



## Chris (Aug 5, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



What is your opinion of the super rich paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us?

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



In the interest of full disclosure, the rich may pay a lower rate but they sure as hell pay the vast majority of the revenue.  And, when you say "the rest of us", don't forget that nearly half of US citizens by no income tax at all...effectively a zero percent rate.  

That said, to your point, my opinion is that we should implement a flat tax.  Everybody pays the same.  That's what you're looking for, right?


----------



## Chris (Aug 5, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



No flat tax.

A progressive tax rate without loopholes.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



So let me get this straight:  You don't want to pay any tax while having the most productive citizens cover your ass by paying more than they already do.  Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of all income tax revenue.  What percentage do you suggest they pay?


----------



## dblack (Aug 5, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Red alert:  They would not.



I think they would, and I suspect that's part of the desire to see so many people desperate and dependent on the state. If you outlaw a poor man's ability to earn his way out of poverty, you essentially 'own' him. Then you have complete power over him. And power is what all this is about.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> No flat tax.
> 
> A progressive tax rate without loopholes.



Fuck you.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> So let me get this straight:  You don't want to pay any tax while having the most productive citizens cover your ass by paying more than they already do.  Currently, the top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of all income tax revenue.  What percentage do you suggest they pay?




Libs won't be satisfied until all income over the 100K mark is confiscated.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 5, 2011)

dblack said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Red alert:  They would not.
> ...



Brush up on current requirements.

The days of letting people enter service or go to jail have been over for quite some time.


----------



## Wiseacre (Aug 5, 2011)

Chris said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...




I think the super rich guys payng a lower tax rate than the rest of us stinks.   That's why I recommend the flat tax, with a consumption tax too.  I also think the gov't spends too much money that it doesn't have, and that the entitlement programs have to be reformed.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 5, 2011)

Comrade Chris is obsessed with rich.
Talking about beating the drum... or just being jealous, rather desperate to be just like them. Seek help man... seriously.



Chris said:


> I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.
> 
> Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.
> 
> When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong.





Chris said:


> 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined.
> 
> The wealth has already been redistributed.





Chris said:


> Envy has nothing to do with it.
> 
> The wealth has already been redistributed to the super rich through tax loopholes and a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivatives Ponzi scheme.
> 
> ...





Chris said:


> The hardest working people make the least money.
> 
> The Mexican farm workers and the people at McDonalds.
> 
> This country is totally fucked up. We are running huge deficits because the Republicans won't raise taxes on the rich by 3%.





Chris said:


> A tic like Big Oil?
> 
> A tic like Wall Street bankers?
> 
> ...





Chris said:


> Horse shit.
> 
> The top 26 hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year running the Ponzi scheme. They skimmed it off the top of THE SAVINGS OF HARD WORKING AMERICANS.  And then, the Ponzi scheme ran out, the government GAVE THEM BACK THE MONEY THAT THEY STOLE AND NO ONE WENT TO JAIL!!!





Chris said:


> I think a government check is a government check.
> 
> My father fought in WW II and never got a penny from the government.
> 
> ...





Chris said:


> Only 6% of mortgages were in default when the market collapsed.
> 
> The market collapsed because Wall Street was running a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme. Just to give you an idea of how big a scam that was, the GDP of all the countries in the world in one year is $50 trillion dollars. The only one that warned about what was about to happen was Warren Buffett. You can read about it at this link...
> 
> Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch





Chris said:


> Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier's window at a racetrack or casino, where you'd place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy.





Chris said:


> Or steal it like the hedge fund managers?





Chris said:


> 4% of the people in this country control 95% of the wealth.
> 
> We have the greatest disparity of wealth in the industrialized world.
> 
> It is an enormous waste of resources and it is morally wrong.





Chris said:


> Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. We need to raise taxes and pull back the military empire.





Chris said:


> We have a strong economy, but the money is concentrated in too few hands.
> 
> Glad you get that.





Chris said:


> Horseshit.
> 
> Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. The Republicans almost destroyed America.
> 
> We have to raise taxes.





Chris said:


> 45% of Americans don't pay federal taxes.
> 
> Our taxes are too low, that's why we have a huge deficit.
> 
> Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the wealthy.





Chris said:


> GE paid no taxes last year.
> 
> The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.
> 
> ...





Chris said:


> What is your opinion of the super rich paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us?
> 
> Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com


----------



## Neotrotsky (Aug 5, 2011)

Ame®icano;3962538 said:
			
		

> Comrade Chris is obsessed with rich.
> Talking about beating the drum... or just being jealous, rather desperate to be just like them. Seek help man... seriously.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;3960856 said:
> ...



I don't understand the question.  The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Prices went up immediately though.

Most notably bread and milk. My state has the highest or close to the highest in the nation


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 5, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



As time goes by, the country is more and more overloaded with takers: greedy geezers, welfare types, illegal aliens, greedy government workers - all lined up at the government trough.  At the same time, the leftwing treats the producers as enemies: the rich, corporations, etc, from whom all wealth comes.  No wonder we've ended up with a $14 trillion debt.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



where do you get that fact from?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 5, 2011)

Neotrotsky said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Used to have a link on my other computer to myths about minimum wage.  It was there.  Can't find it now,  If it helps, the last time the mw was raised, that was brought up in the discussion.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Myth, perhaps


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 5, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



As measured by what, the unemployment rate?  That's a joke, right?  Unemployment does not count those that have given up looking for work, which the less fortunate I'm referring to did long before we last raised the minimum wage.  Your comment is a non sequitur - it has nothing to do how a minimum wage devastates the most vulnerable in our society.  

Seriously, think with logic and reason.  What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage.  Answer us that if you can.  

One might also point out your arrogance by asking what gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for?  What special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2011)

No need to beat up on Sheila.  I disagree with her too on this but she is mostly arguing the concept and not denigrating those who disagree with her.

No 'net loss of jobs' is not a particularly good recommendation for raising the minimum wage though.  All that means is that the less qualified workes were even more shut out of the jobs market and everybody else paid more for goods and services due to higher labor costs.  And in the long run an artificially high wage becomes counterproductive as inflation eats up all the increased earnings and usually a bit more.

And that would account for her impression that you could once live on minimum wage but cannot do so any more.  Any time the government starts meddling with the free market system, sooner or later we all will experience negative unintended consequences.


----------



## Wiseacre (Aug 6, 2011)

Minimum wage is supposed to be where most of us started at, you're not supposed to be spending your entire working life at the lowest rung of the wage scale.   And you shouldn't be trying to raise children at that level either.   If you are, then you've made some mistakes or bad decsions that the rest of us are not responsible for.  That may sound cold-hearted, but we cannot sustain a society in which mistakes of this sort are subsidized, we should be disincentivizing those decisions instead.


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.
> 
> Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com


Ok, lets tax them at 100% and cover a months worth of spending, as well as deduct 105 billion dollars from the private economy that can not be spent or invested to create jobs.


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 7, 2011)

> Morality of Wealth Redistribution



Morality?  Yes, it is immoral that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor and middle class!  Wealth is being redistributed UPWARD - not downward.






Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap

*15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America*

The gap between the top 1% and everyone else hasn't been this bad since the Roaring Twenties.

Charts/Facts


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2011)

> *Morality of wealth distribution?*


 
*All god's children gots to eat.*

*End of sermon.*


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 7, 2011)

Unfortunately your chart ignores a most important fact:  The size of the average household has been decreasing.  Families are getting smaller.  Fewer people are getting married.    The per capita income has been steadily increasing.

Your post is an exercise in demagoguery.  It's a big fat lie, in other words.




Lakhota said:


> > Morality of Wealth Redistribution
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Unfortunately your chart ignores a most important fact:  The size of the average household has been decreasing.  Families are getting smaller.  Fewer people are getting married.    The per capita income has been steadily increasing.
> 
> Your post is an exercise in demagoguery.  It's a big fat lie, in other words.
> 
> ...



I don't understand your point.  Household income is household income regardless of the size of the household.  If you are insinuating that fewer people in a household are working now, I think that's unlikely since more and more women (wives) have gone to work it seems that more of the lower classes are worker, not fewer.  This would make the chart even worse than it looks.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 7, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



One more time Sheila: 

1) What are the poor, uneducated, and slower members of our society to do to survive when their skills don't justify your minimum wage?
2) What gives you the right to determine what another man is willing to work for? In other words, what special gift gives you the ability to determine the value of a another man's labor?

Thrill us with your acumen...


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



In the richest country in the world, there is no excuse for the lowest paid members of our society no to make enough to support themselves.  This whole thread is about "morality".  Think about it.

In other words, the poor, uneducated and slower members of our society should be making a minimum living wage and everything should go up from there.  

We should not be subsidizing employers with foodstamps, help with energy bills, etc.  That's what we end up doing when they aren't paid enough to support themselves.

I will allow that for the "special needs" we should subsidize their employment...but that's where I draw the line.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



You completely ignore the reality of your supposition.  The result of your so-called moral position is that the most vulnerable end up WITH NO WORK AT ALL.  Do you really not get that?  You still haven't answered the question - What do we do with those folks?

If we stopped all the subsidization, which we should, that still wouldn't change the fact that there are people whose skill set does not warrant an artificially high minimum wage.  Nor would it change the fact that if an employer is forced to pay the minimum wage, it reduces the total number of employees they can hire.

Again, what are you suggesting we do with those that end up with NO work because of your minimum wage?  Feel free to work morality into your answer.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Why do you think a janitor doesn't deserve to make enough money to support himself?  Why do you think a maid doesn't deserve enough money to support herself?

What we have now is an artificially low minimum wage, caused by a massive increase in immigration both legal and illegal.  If we went back to the immigration rates of the 60's, the janitors would be in bigger demand and their pay would of course raise accordingly.

Remember, Americans have limited their birthrate to less than replacement value.  But instead of having more resources available to us, we actually have less because our government increased immigration to make up for our lower birthrates.  

Send the illegals home, decrease legal immigration and there will be enough jobs for everybody.


----------



## kaz (Aug 7, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn



Yes comrade, all money is the people's money.  To give someone a tax break is to "subsidize" them.  To not take their money is the same as giving someone else's money to someone.  

And actually they did earn it, they don't get subsidies, they get tax breaks.  Imagine, being able to write off your expenses and not count them as profits...


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 7, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


The result of the failed minimum wage policy is that more people are unemployed, and thus welfare is more expensive. Since welfare is paid for by employers and workers, higher welfare means everyone else is forced to be that much less productive, earn that much less in real wages after taxes, or employ that many less people. Coupled with welfare, minimum wage is even more destructive to the poor and working classes.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Oh my god.  You are STILL ignoring the point!  Stop talking about what EMPLOYED people are making and tell us what you would do with those that have no work because they either don't have the skills to justify the minimum wage or the employer is limited by how many he can hire, again because of the minimum wage.  It's the ones NOT working I'm talking about.  One last time:  How is it moral to prevent those folks from working?

If you want to kick out millions of illegals, fine, but that's not going to change the dynamic of how the minimum wage effects the least capable in our society.  FOCUS!


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



What?

I agree illegals are a problem but the democrats aren't welcoming them for population reasons - they welcome them because they vote democrat because democrats are more than willing to support them.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Again, the last 2 times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.  Why is it that you think people who are working don't deserve a living wage?  Talk about missing the point.  

Right now unemployment is at 9.1%, probably much more than that, raising the mw will not have an effect on that either way.  The truth is, we've lost our jobs due to free trade and massive immigration.  Raising the mw to a living wage won't reduce our jobs anymore, we don't have anymore jobs to lose.  

My job went to India...how is raising the mw going to cost me my job?  It's already gone.  

My sister's job went to China, how is raising the mw going to cost her her job?  

You are assuming that raising the mw will cost us jobs but that is a myth.  Yeah, some jobs may be moved around, but we are already pretty much at a minimum for employment.  Anymore jobs we lose won't be because of mw, either way, it will be because of our so called "free trade" policies.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You have no ability to focus on the point at hand.  None.  We already told you that unemployment rates do not take into consideration those that have stopped looking for a job...exactly the most vulnerable people we're talking about.  You just are not willing to accept the reality that the minimum wage prevents the neediest Americans from working at all.  That speaks VOLUMES about your morality.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the argument and it is beyond ridiculous on its own.  You and your sister are not the below minimum wage workers we are talking about...but you really know that unless you're even less intelligent than you appear.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Why is it that you think people who are _not_ working don't deserve a _job_? What is more moral: people living on low wages, or people living on nothing?

The result of minimum wage is not higher "living" wages. The result is that certain people end up with *zero* wages.


----------



## Sundial (Aug 7, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Social security and Medicare/Medicaid cost a lot of money ~ 40% of all spending.  And it's true a lot of those people could work if they wanted to.  But that's no reason to cut the programs.  Redistributing money from the young to the old is something our country's been doing for 80 years now.  People have made plans around social security and Medicare being there for them.  At most those programs should be cut, not eliminated.

And I wouldn't call them 'freeloaders'.  After all, many of them paid taxes that supported old people when they were young, just as I'm paying taxes to support them today.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 7, 2011)

Sundial said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


These programs absolutely must be _phased out._ Nobody is advocating cutting them immediately, and you are correct that people base their savings around the programs. But the programs hurt the economy, and people would be better off if encouraged to invest and save for their own retirement. As it is now, retirement money is spent by government and taxed later. Investment in the private sector is a much better option. Just because we have been doing it for 80 years does not make it right. I am sure the proponents of slavery made the same argument. The reason to cut these programs is because without them we are all ultimately better off, not to mention even if they were good programs we simply cannot afford them.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Sundial said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



I agree.  We cannot simply eliminate those programs, but if we the people wanted to, we could wrest these programs out of the control of the thieves in Washington.  We definitely do not want to eliminate the retirement savings incentives, but even a blind-folded monkey could get a better return on investments than the government is providing.

Oh wait, it is not supposed to be an investment.  It is an "insurance policy".  Screw that, I would rather find my own policy.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2011)

To repeat:

"No net loss of jobs" means many more are unemployed than there were before.  The population is steadily increasing and if the number of jobs isn't also increasing, it is obvious there are more people not working.  If increase in the minimum wage results in no 'net loss of jobs', that is a really sad recommendation for it.

When there is full employment, the economy is humming, labor is in higher demand, and employers cannot only afford to hire more people, but they can afford to pay them better and will in order to get them to work.  

Again labor is a commodity and a cost of doing business like everything else.  I have my labor to sell and will usually sell it to the highest bidder.  When many people are looking for work, my labor will not be worth as much and I will not command as high a price for it because other people will be willing to work for less to get the job.   And there will likely be fewer jobs because the economy won't be as robust and need as many workers to support it.

For this reason, each time the minimum wage has been raised, the median family incomes have flattened out more and are not rising as quickly.  The minimum wage isn't the only reason for this, but it is one of them.   If you let the free market work, wages generally improve dramatically for those who make their labor worth the price.

And I don't DESERVE a job or a certain wage or certain benefits just because I have labor to sell.  I DESERVE a wage or benefits or promotion because I worked as agreed for somebody willing and able to pay me and made my labor worth it to that employer.  My labor is worth only as much as it will benefit the employer who hired me.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



My job, that went to India, I was making just a little over minimum wage.  If you are paying less than minimum wage, you are breaking the law.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 7, 2011)

When everybody claims the welfare benefits to which all are entitled who will be left to run the money presses?  Oh, wait, Obama can offshore that, too.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2011)

I would like to have a President and Congress who understand why those jobs are going to India or China or the Phillipines or Mexico or wherever.  I would like for us to have a business climate again in which business owners would dare to risk their cash reserves to start hiring and expanding again; where those with trillions in venture capital stashed overseas would dare bring it home again.

When we make it more attractive to do business in the USA than elsewhere, the jobs will come back.  Until then, raising the minimum wage, raising business taxes, and increasing regulation will only drive more and more jobs overseas.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> What is your opinion of the super rich paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us?
> 
> Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com



I prefer non-fiction.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 7, 2011)

Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare?  I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> I don't understand your point.  Household income is household income regardless of the size of the household.  If you are insinuating that fewer people in a household are working now, I think that's unlikely since more and more women (wives) have gone to work it seems that more of the lower classes are worker, not fewer.  This would make the chart even worse than it looks.



I'm not surprised that you don't get it.  That's why you're a liberal.

If household income has to be shared among fewer people, then those people are relatively wealthier.

I grew up in a family with 7 children.  Nowadays, families with more than 2 children are rare.  According to you, if both families bring in 100K per year, they are both equally well off.  You have to be a moron to believe that.

Also, a lot more families consist of single mothers or just plain single people.  According to your lame understanding of economics, a single person making 100K is no better off than a family of 4 bringing in 100K.

I could go on, but that should suffice to show the flaw in your chart.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> In the richest country in the world, there is no excuse for the lowest paid members of our society no to make enough to support themselves.  This whole thread is about "morality".  Think about it.



No one's stopping you from writing them a check, sheila.  What does "there's no excuse" mean?  Does that mean it's impossible?  No, certainly not.  Does that mean I'm obligated to support these losers?  No, certainly not.  How does someone's failure to support himself become an obligation on me?

What does it mean, Sheila?



Againsheila said:


> In other words, the poor, uneducated and slower members of our society should be making a minimum living wage and everything should go up from there.



Meaningless twaddle.



Againsheila said:


> We should not be subsidizing employers with foodstamps, help with energy bills, etc.  That's what we end up doing when they aren't paid enough to support themselves.
> 
> I will allow that for the "special needs" we should subsidize their employment...but that's where I draw the line.



than put an end to food stamps.  I certainly wouldn't cry about that.  However, the program doesn't "subsidize" employers.  That claim is based on the premise that employers would have to pay them more if it wasn't for the food stamp program.  That fact is not in evidence.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > In the richest country in the world, there is no excuse for the lowest paid members of our society no to make enough to support themselves.  This whole thread is about "morality".  Think about it.
> ...



Once a week, I give out lunches to those who need it at the church.  I currently have a young homeless man living in my house, he's the 3rd in as many years.  I have given what I can.  

You really believe that a working person is going to be able to continue to work for an employer if he can't feed himself?  If he can't keep warm?  Face it, if there weren't such systems, the employers would have to pay more.  

The main reason we keep foodstamps and such programs running is to prevent a revolution such as the french revolution.  The hungrier you are the more likely you are to fight.  I agree...stop all welfare.  Let's see what happens.  My guess is, the rich won't like it much.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 7, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your point.  Household income is household income regardless of the size of the household.  If you are insinuating that fewer people in a household are working now, I think that's unlikely since more and more women (wives) have gone to work it seems that more of the lower classes are worker, not fewer.  This would make the chart even worse than it looks.
> ...



It's not my chart, and I'm not a liberal.  I grew up in a family with 5 children.  My neighbor has 8.  Guess what?  It's cheaper by the dozen.  Ie, the more you have, the cheaper they are.  

Oh, and while European Americans have limited their children to replacement value, immigrants, 1st and 2nd generation, of which we have millions, have an average of 7.5 kids per family.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> What is your opinion of the super rich paying a lower tax rate than the rest of us?



So, you would support a flat tax rate with no deductions for any reason? Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama actually paying taxes? Think carefully, there are party members at risk!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> I don't understand the question.  The last few times the mw was raised, there was no net loss of jobs.



There was for Americans in the country legally. The rise of the MW shifted jobs once held by teens to illegal aliens. Almost as if it were planned.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm new to this thread, but thought I'd check it out.  The usual lib vs con insults of course without much progression of the real topic.

I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?

If you make a million a year, 1K in taxes won't hurt as much as 1K in taxes for someone who makes 35K per year. The shared pain just isn't the same. The poorer person gets stabbed more.

Yes, financial incentives are important to factor into any analysis of people's motivations, but people aren't going to STOP trying to make money just because they're taxed more. And while there are indeed welfare cheats and unemployment bums, as Mark Twain said, "highly exaggerated".


----------



## dblack (Aug 8, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
> The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?



I think you're right, that this is the perspective of those arguing for progressive taxation, but I think it's wrong for a number of reasons.

First of all, taxation isn't a 'penalty'. Presumably we aren't being taxed because we've committed a crime, or done anything wrong. Taxes are just a matter of paying for government.

As such, the concept of equalizing the 'burden' (which will always be a completely subjective estimation) is silly. Would you recommend that all our other 'costs of living' be equalized in this same manner? Is it fair that someone who makes 30k a year should have to pay the same for a gallon of milk as someone who make ten times that much?


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



That's it, I give up.  You are being purposefully obtuse.  We'll mark you down as someone whose "morality" supports preventing the most vulnerable from supporting themselves.  Sick.


----------



## jgarden (Aug 8, 2011)

*Morality of Wealth Redistribution 

The redistribution of wealth is inherent in all government legislation dealing with the taxation and expenditure of money.  Wealth and political contributions "buys" access and influence to the government decision makers who craft and vote on this legislation.

All one has to do is follow the "money trail" for the last 30 years to determine the who have been the "winners" and "losers" in this process.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 8, 2011)

jgarden said:


> All one has to do is follow the "money trail" for the last 30 years to determine the who have been the "winners" and "losers" in this process.



I'm thinking the "winners" are the ones retiring with 90% salary for life after 20 years of government "service."

I'm thinking the losers are all the poor fuckers in the productive sector paying for these pampered aristocrats.


----------



## Stuckinarut (Aug 8, 2011)

thereisnospoon said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.
> ...



Priceless


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 8, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
> The government puts a burden on everyone and the burden on everyone should hurt the same. Why should someone be penalized more than someone else?



What moral principle is that based on?  Should the burden the local grocery store imposes on everyone be the same?  Should rich people have to pay 5 times more for tomatoes than poor people?  Should they pay 5 times more for gas?

Your principle is total bullshit.  It's really the moral code of thieves.  They take money from rich people because they can get more that way.  

That's the only "principle" there is behind progressive taxation.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 9, 2011)

HenryBHough said:


> Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare?  I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.


What you've said suggests that _everything_ one works for will be confiscated under optimal progressive tax rates, which simply isn't true.  And by optimal progressive tax rates I mean those which existed between the late 40s and early 80s:


The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Were there no millionaires back then?  Was the economy in the tank back then as it is today?  The answer is the economy was strong and healthy.  It grew consistently and many fortunes were amassed.  In fact those were the most prosperous years in our history.  Productive people accumulated wealth -- just not as much and not quite as fast.

The Progressive movement has no problem with reasonable wealth.  The problem we have is with excessive wealth.  The kind of wealth which is giving rise to a neo-aristocracy, which is distinctly *un-American!*


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 9, 2011)

MikeK said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare?  I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.
> ...


Those were the most prosperous years in our history? Really? Talk about cherry picking data. You excluded the massive economic expansion of the 19th century, as wells as the 1920s. History did not start in 1950. Also, correlation is not causation. In the 50s, we did not have as much government in our lives. You are also looking soley at income tax, as if it is the only tax and all that matters. Nor do you take into account loopholes, the amount of revenue actually collected, and the real rate that the rich paid. It was actually far less. It took me an entire paragraph to simply list a few of the flaws in your argument. I haven't even gone into detail yet.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 9, 2011)

MikeK said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare?  I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.
> ...



Does the fact that there were millionaires back then make any difference?

Does it give you the right to vilify the rich today?

Who died and made the progressive movement the conscious of this society?  What gives this movement of intolerant people the right to decide what is reasonable wealth and what is excessive wealth?  

Immie


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 9, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
> ...



Let me give the person doing the insulting the negative attention he wants. Unlike dblack above who responded with civility, you choose to jump to being an asshole because you're an anonymous schmuck on the internet.

I think you're about to go on ignore. Not that you care, but perhaps someone else will read this and put you on their ignore too.



dblack said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > I think the perspective of progressive taxation is this:
> ...



First, thanks for replying with civility. 

In response, I think the word penalty isn't to be fixated on. It's burden.  And yes, equalizing the burden IS an acceptable goal. You wouldnt go to the DMV and pay $30 for a parking ticket ...then take it lightly when your wife goes and has to pay $300, would you?

Your detour into costs of living is a completely different matter. Everyone in the country can't be artificially brought up to the same standard of living, but the burden on people CAN be the same.  Private prices on consumer goods are part of the PRIVATE market of goods and services...a private market that is separate from governmental fees, taxes, and costs.  The private right to contract between citizens (be it individuals or businesses) should not and legally cannot be obstructed by states or the federal government. Private people should have the liberty to conduct business and make agreements that THEY want to make.

On the other hand, the government has the ability to enact any form of taxation that the representative democracy decides is worth enacting.  The FF's didn't say "No taxation EVER"...they said "No taxation without representation."  (now whether our representatives are actually listening to us and doing what we want them to do is another matter)  So if the people of the country say, "we find it a valid cause to enact progressive taxation to bring the burden of taxation into a scheme that burdens everyone equally, or some approximation thereof"...that's the way it goes.

It's been widely reported lately that the balance sheets of American corporations are the best they've ever been in decades. That they're sitting on pools of untapped cash reserves. But they aren't spending.  I don't blame them. As a business owner, I'm not hiring and pulling back to be more efficient as well. I'm not adding to my lists of products and services right now because the calculus of risk vs reward is murky for what I'd planned to expand into.  Trickle down, rich magnanimity doesn't work.

Right now the economic markets have to realize that despite the interconnectedness of the Fed Res system and credit, that private business strength is worth investing in, even if the government is fucking up.  Once they do, the market will shoot off like a rocket (probably even a stochastic bubble)...but the media isn't helping.


----------



## eflatminor (Aug 9, 2011)

MikeK said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anybody want to work and get rich - or for that matter get a job and get off welfare?  I mean when you KNOW anything you actually work for will be confiscated and redistributed.
> ...



Well thank god we have you to tell us what constitutes excessive wealth.  All hail the central planners for they know what is best for you!  Thank you oh exulted one, thank you!


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 9, 2011)

eflatminor said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > HenryBHough said:
> ...



First, to the comment of "Why would anybody want to work and get rich..."  Taxing people isn't going to stop them from wanting to get rich. It just doesn't happen. Getting handout might de-incentivize some people from ever existing on more than the minimum...but you aren't going to stop type-A personalities from trying to achieve and gather up wealth.

Now to the comment about "what contitutes excessive wealth."  You realize that in our current legal system, under contract law, this has been done for decades? Contracts can be "unconscionable" either because the traded promise and resulting result are so dissimilar in value...or because the actual process that brought the contract was amazing unfair...a contract can be entirely voided.  Is that some liberal construct? 

There is a national conscience...and while it's not a bright line that's jumping up and down screaming "this is too much money!"...there is such thing as an unconscionably in business...and we need to recognize that!

I'm sure the concept of "it's possible to make too much money on a business deal" might seem foreign to some who think it's ok to treat anyone however they want within the law. But we're all connected in this country...it's not every man for himself.  I think some conservatives in their hatred of free-loaders and lazy bums throw the baby out with the bathwater and think that because they're ok...it's ok not to help others through government.


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> In response, I think the word penalty isn't to be fixated on. It's burden.  And yes, equalizing the burden IS an acceptable goal. You wouldnt go to the DMV and pay $30 for a parking ticket ...then take it lightly when your wife goes and has to pay $300, would you?



And yet, isn't this exactly what progressive taxation is all about - assessing state fees based on personal circumstance rather than the services rendered? The problem here, in my view, is that 'burden' is a completely subject estimation. You can't accurately assess how much of a burden a given tax payment will be for each and every individual without knowing all the details of their lives. And that gets to my principal beef with our tax code. Our government is abusing the power to tax by also using it as a tool for wealth redistribution. It's led to a tax code that is overly complex, overly intrusive, easily manipulated and ultimately more unfair than simpler alternatives.

This is why I proposed earlier that wealth redistribution should be handled through other channels. Doing so would be more transparent and provide us with more honest feedback from voters. It would also clean up our tax system, provide more stable revenue for the government, and more predictable costs for business. Businesses can absorb relatively high tax overhead if it's stable. What kills them is never knowing what their projected costs are going to be because the tax code is constantly blowing with the political wind.



> Your detour into costs of living is a completely different matter. Everyone in the country can't be artificially brought up to the same standard of living, but the burden on people CAN be the same.  Private prices on consumer goods are part of the PRIVATE market of goods and services...a private market that is separate from governmental fees, taxes, and costs.  The private right to contract between citizens (be it individuals or businesses) should not and legally cannot be obstructed by states or the federal government. Private people should have the liberty to conduct business and make agreements that THEY want to make.
> 
> On the other hand, the government has the ability to enact any form of taxation that the representative democracy decides is worth enacting.  The FF's didn't say "No taxation EVER"...they said "No taxation without representation."  (now whether our representatives are actually listening to us and doing what we want them to do is another matter)  So if the people of the country say, "we find it a valid cause to enact progressive taxation to bring the burden of taxation into a scheme that burdens everyone equally, or some approximation thereof"...that's the way it goes.



Whether it's constitutional or not is another discussion. Here we're focused (presumably) on the moral justification, and that's why I'm wondering why the efforts to 'equalize burden' apply only to the taxes we pay. If it's morally wrong to charge people with different wealth the same price for a service when it comes to government, why is it ok with everything else?

To be honest, all the defenses I've heard sound like convenient rationalizations. From what I've seen, the taxation power was merely a handy tool to implement the unrelated agenda of wealth redistribution. And I think it would do our nation a great boon to be honest about what we're doing and use an entirely different vehicle for addressing wealth disparity.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 9, 2011)

It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law. All equal as citizens. All equal in our responsibility to each other.  It shouldnt be harder for one person to fulfill his or her obligation to be a citizen than it should be for another.

On the other hand, privately, we're not all equal to each other personally. You have free will, the ability to own private property, and can be self-determined. To contrast with government, you have free will not to be part of the social contract that is America, but if you do, then you're one of those who is equal under the law. Again, because wealth is relative, burden is relative.

I agree that our money doesn't belong to the government. It's ours that we earn. Tax cuts aren't benevolence from the government...it's the government returning as much of our own money as it can. There should be a constant pressure to do things smarter and cheaper. Morally, if we as a nation realize that helping the least of us helps the richest of us as well, and we enact programs like Medicare...it has to be paid.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 9, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law. All equal as citizens. All equal in our responsibility to each other.  It shouldnt be harder for one person to fulfill his or her obligation to be a citizen than it should be for another.
> 
> On the other hand, privately, we're not all equal to each other personally. You have free will, the ability to own private property, and can be self-determined. To contrast with government, you have free will not to be part of the social contract that is America, but if you do, then you're one of those who is equal under the law. Again, because wealth is relative, burden is relative.
> 
> I agree that our money doesn't belong to the government. It's ours that we earn. Tax cuts aren't benevolence from the government...it's the government returning as much of our own money as it can. There should be a constant pressure to do things smarter and cheaper. Morally, if we as a nation realize that helping the least of us helps the richest of us as well, and we enact programs like Medicare...it has to be paid.



Good post except for maybe some fine tuning in the 'equal responsibility to each other' category.  The sum of the definition of unalienable rights is that I have the right to act, believe, say, think, or promote whatever does not infringe on the rights of another or that requires no contribution or participation by another person.

Unalienable rights means I have no responsibility for another except by my choice.  The choice may be arbitrary, spontaneous, or considered such as throwing a rope to a drowning man or helping out a homeless person on the street.   The choice may be contractual either legally drawn or implied.  If I choose to marry, I assume obligations to my spouse.  If I have children, I assume responsibility for their welfare.  If I employ people, I assume responsibility to see that work conditions are reasonably safe and adequate and that the people I employ are compensated as agreed.  But it is always my choice to marry, to have kids, to hire people, etc.

Once anybody else can make such choices for me, without my consent, I have lost some of my unalienable rights.   Which is why I am opposed to the Federal government providing any form of charity to anybody.  I would like a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.  As noble and righteous and compassionate as it sounds to use the people's money to help certain people out, the negatives produced far outweigh the benefits when it is the federal government doing it.

And in addition, Federal entitlement programs, such as Medicare, without exception have shown themselves to be less and less sustainable as the years pass.  So as not break faith with those we have made dependent on such programs, we should begin now to slowly and incrementally return them to the States where they should have been all along.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Aug 9, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


Its immoral. People who don't earn the wealth do not deserve part of someone elses wealth unless he or she WORKS for it.


----------



## dblack (Aug 9, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law.



That's ironic to me, because that's pretty much the perspective I'm coming from. The question of wealth redistribution - especially the issue of doing it via progressive income tax - seems to be about treating people quite unequally. You have to do some pretty convoluted gymnastics with the concept of equal (introducing the very subjective notion of 'equal burden') to claim that progressive taxation represents equality under the law.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 9, 2011)

dblack said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > It's ok to do it with government because we're supposed to all be equal under the law.
> ...



I disagree that it's convoluted. Only because of the extreme push that we've heard from one side in the media does it seem foreign. You're intelligent. You can understand the concept of relativity. 

There's a difference in something BEING the same (two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper)...and something FEELING the same ($200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince).

Explained in a less touchy-feely way...it can be described at the net effect.  The net effect on all citizens should be the same. Take my example above: two people with $2000 bills, one a prince and the other a pauper - the same CAUSE has a DIFFERENT effect on the two. Whereas with $200 for the pauper and $20,000 for the prince, the EFFECT

Being a citizen shouldn't be harder on one citizen than on another. Otherwise we've turned into a "fuck you, it's your own fault you're poor" society.  There's got to be some middle ground between everyone fend for themselves and a nanny state. There just has to be.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 9, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



The middle ground is a culture in which the people are mostly a religious and morally centered people who look after and take care of the people in their communities.  The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution would not be effective and sustainable for people who did not share such character traits.  That does not mean that every person has to be religious or share the same values as his fellows, but if most are not that way, the Constitution won't work.  The effective society may assign some duties to the state, some to local government, but it is the will of the people and not those in government that prevails.

The alternative is a culture in which some will say I've got mine and the rest can go to hell, or a culture in which politicians can buy votes, power, prestige, and feather their own nests by forcing some Americans to serve others.  It becomes a 'lets be noble, magnanimous, and charitable with YOUR money', but unfortunately it is the gathering and distribution of the money that becomes the goal and not whether people are actually helped.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 10, 2011)

I agree with a lot of what you've said. Washington has become a culture of wasteful spending with political payoffs - not efficient and not effective enough.

I also agree that the Constitution was built on the understanding that people would have common religious values. I, myself, am an atheist, but realize that the FF expected a moral core to the citizenry that would be the bedrock of the nation. They had atheists in their time too, but still expected even the atheists to have a moral code.

We've reached a point in this country where only the extreme voices get heard. If you're not extreme then you're boring. Well, I'm here to tell you...government work is supposed to be boring. It's not fun. It's not sexy. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake. Not every decision is 100% perfect, nor does compromise mean you've given in to weakness.

I'm not sure who will be president next, but good f'ng luck. I'd like to think that after Obama has been vilified so much that liberals wouldn't do what they've complained about with conservatives should a conservative win the office. I remember how they treated Bush and know it'll be the same. Both sides are bat-shit crazy.

I do have to say, if the government doesn't help, I don't see the current wave of "fuck you, you lazy bums" sentiment fostering a level of compassion on a local level around this fine nation. That's gone. See ya.  Churches are still doing their thing, along with the Red Cross, Salvation Army and the like. But if you simply dropped a lot of the support the federal government gives, the nation would suffer an even LARGER freefall.

That's not to say we don't need to cut back...we have to cut back. But it's not as easy as the scorched Earth policy some conservatives are promoting. "It Aint in the Constitution!!" ain't gonna cut it.


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 10, 2011)

In an ideal world we wouldn't need social welfare, everyone would donate enough to charity to take the burden, there would be very low unemployment with only the heavily disabled or mentally ill not working. We don't have that world, which is why we will have welfare. That and compassion is at an all time low, education and maybe more ethics in society would help, but at the same time everyone that works for a living is sick of people on benefits not trying to find work; and thus pushing up the tax bill.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2011)

Before the federal government started being so benevolent, the states and local communities did take care of their own.   There were state hospitals for the indigent and mentally ill.  Somebody couldn't afford an operation?  The local bank set up a special fund for conributions and everybody chipped in.  Or held a benefit.

The next town over was half destroyed by a tornado?  People for miles around came to help dig out, clear debris, rebuild, offer housing to the temporarily homeless.  The 'permanently' homeless were called hobos back then.  And they expected nothing for free but were more than willing to perform what odd jobs they could for a supply of food or shelter from the winter storm in the barn.  And the homeowners and local businesses always provided that.

Famine in Africa?   Everybody held fund drives, took up collections, and the aid poured into the striken areas through such organizations as Church World Service and World Vision that were allowed to enter areas that no government officials could.

Once the federal government started using our tax money for all these things though, our little local canned food drive looked puny in the face of government tens of thousands, then millioms, then billions of dollars of aid.  Soon few people were no longer making the effort.

But the problem with government aid is that it is from government to government rather than from the people to the people.  And most of those government siphon off most of it for their own purposes and most of the people who need it never see any benefit from it.  

The problem with federal government charity, among other things, is that every dollar confiscated in taxes then passes through layer after layer of bureaucracy, each siphoning off their 'expenses',  so that only a fraction of it gets to somebody who really needs it.  If that.  When it is suggested that something be cut by a billion dollars or so, you aren't taking much away from the needy.  You're taking a whole bunch away from the bureaucracy however, and that's why they scream like stuck pigs.

As Vanquish said, there is a better way.  There just has to be.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 10, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


The problem with that argument, in my opinion, is that taxation takes a percentage of income, not a fixed amount, from everyone. So if the tax rate were 20%, the prince making 100,000 would pay $20,000 and the pauper making $1,000 would be taxed $200. Richer people will pay higher numerical amounts under a flat tax. The percentage of income, however, will be the same.

It is also important to think about _expenses_. The expenses of the prince who may own a business and hire workers will be far higher than the expenses of the pauper. His money is not hiding under a mattress. Much of the money is also invested, allowing production to expand, thus lowering prices and helping the _poor_. Giving the poor money from government decreases the amount of resources available to grow the economy. The poor will likely not invest the money, but spend it on consumer goods. This will result in a focus on a consumer economy, rather than an economy where investments are made in capital to promote long term growth.

Another thing to think about is how much the prince gives back to society. Say the prince hires many workers, and although he makes a large income his actual profits after paying the costs of production are only slightly higher than the pauper. If he were taxed at a higher rate, the "burden" would be higher on him than the pauper, and he may even have to lay off workers.

It is not as simple as rich people have a lighter burden and poor have a heavy burden, so we have to equalize burdens. Every individual seeks to lessen his or her burden. If in doing so the burden is replaced by taxation, it creates a very hopeless and absurd situation in which people are never allowed to reap the benefits of being successful.


----------



## Maple (Aug 10, 2011)

" Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery." Winston Churchill

What you state as to be a moral cause is actually a failed system, it's failing now right before your eyes in London, Greece, soon to be Spain and Italy.

When you take from the producers to give to the non-producers there is no reason for the producers to produce as you have given them a life style that is similar to the non-producer.

In other words why would you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to get a great education, you go to work, work your tail off, and the government comes in and takes so much of your money to give to someone who has no ambition to work and would rather sit home and be on welfare. Then you live in the same style of home, a dump, you have no more money than the guy who did nothing. Where is the incentive to work hard. There is none- hard work- is negated. 

This used to be a free market society where the people who work hard, spend, save and invest their money so others have the opportunity to do the same, because it's the hard working person through spending, saving and investing that creates job opportunities for others in the private sector. They create a demand for products and services and business needs to hire people to keep up with the demand.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2011)

I think it was Patrick Henry who said the purpose of the Constitution was not to restrain the people but to restrain the government.  When the government takes more in taxes than it needs to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, it will take freedom and rights from the people.

From Thomas Jefferson's first inaugeral address:


> A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.  Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.



Every American with income should contribute a percentage to support the necessary functions of government and the government should be doing nothing that is not necessary for government to do.  How much income each American has is irrelevant to this concept but the government should treat every American equally with all other Americans.   Do that and the debt and deficit crisis we now have will go away.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 10, 2011)

Maple said:


> " Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery." Winston Churchill
> 
> What you state as to be a moral cause is actually a failed system, it's failing now right before your eyes in London, Greece, soon to be Spain and Italy.
> 
> ...



First of all, there is no such thing as a free market. For as long as religions and governments have controlled commerce that term has been invalid.

Second, this idealized notion of some better time when everyone pulled their weight...and if only we could get rid of the lazy bums is so simplistic and false that I don't know where to begin. There are SOOOOO many other ways to end up poor other than being lazy I could type for a year. Such a large contingent of conservatives thinks that if we just got the welfare cheats and lazy bums gone, the country would go back to the "good ole days" ...and that couldn't be farther from the truth.  To be fair, a large contingent of liberals wants to spend too much on social engineering programs with a naive eye towards the concept of incentives.

Welfare cheats and the amount of people ON welfare isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be. Not even close. Sorry to shine a light on the monster under the bed.

And you haven't even gone into farm subsidies and corporate welfare. Usually it's the people who complain about "lazy bums" who don't mind corporations using their leverage to "smartly find ways around taxes."  That type also thinks that trickle down economics work, despite the fact that we've had 1.1 Trillion (with a T) in tax cuts since 2008 and it hasn't helped.

Your comment about "why work if it gets taxed so much" is flawed logic. No matter how much you get taxed there will always be type-a people who want to gather wealth and accomplish achievements. That's the kind of person I am...and my wife..and most of our family. And most of the people I surround myself with.

I do believe the opposite of that assertion - that there are some people who will learn to live on the bare minimum so they don't HAVE to work.



ShackledNation said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



While I definitely agree with your refinement of the idea of "actual income" through basic cost accounting (gross income - expenses etc. etc.), we can all agree to a formula for income for both rich and poor so that we're comparing apples to apples.

If you're making a million dollars and have two million in expenses (being simplistic of course), you're right...that's a snapshot of more money going out than going in.  But financials taken on a calendar also don't take into account cash flow (the scheduling of expenses for maximum usefulness).

Investments by the rich themselves aren't always long term and are often short term consumer spending. Buying assets that depreciate is a perfect example.

And to say that investments help the poor is a really blanket statement. Perhaps a company buys a new machine that replaces a person's job and the poor guy gets fired (computer, welding robot etc.). 

What it boils down to, for me, is that private charity fails to do enough by itself. If the EPA were gone tomorrow and the portion of the budget for protecting wildlife were given back to the people of the USA, would private groups rise up and do the same job? Highly doubtful.  Even further, would the private groups have the same authority to police companies and individuals? Of course not.

We can't spend into oblivion...and cuts in spending ought to be job #1...but the country isn't going to get better if the poorest people are asked to do more than those who are more affluent...while the people with money and power use their advantages to do less and less.

The government can't make sure that everyone is equally wealthy...nor should it try to. But there's a basic standard of living that, if everyone were able to rise to, the affluent would benefit as well. We're all connected.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2011)

Respectfully disagreeing with Vanguish that there is no such thing as a free market.  There most certainly is even when tempered with regulation to protect unalienable rights.

That everybody should aspire to an X standard of living is a no brainer, but when that translates to the Marxist concept that the government should bring down the rich and greedy to more equalize wealth, and that  will accomplish that X standard of living for everybody, you soon have a skewed society in which most will expect to be provided for whether or not they produce anything for society.



> I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
> 
> No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin--On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor[6] (29 November 1766)



I used that Ben Franklin quotation as my sig line for years.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2011)

I further my argument for free trade as the solution rather than government management using this excellent essay by Walter Williams, one of my favorite economists:

Excerpt:



> The idea that even the brightest person or group of bright people, much less the U.S. Congress, can wisely manage an economy has to be the height of arrogance and conceit. Why? It is impossible for anyone to possess the knowledge that would be necessary for such an undertaking. At the risk of boring you, let's go through a small example that proves such knowledge is impossible. . . . .
> 
> . . . .The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Take just one of those items -- canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is: Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.
> 
> ...


----------



## realife (Aug 10, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Before the federal government started being so benevolent, the states and local communities did take care of their own.   There were state hospitals for the indigent and mentally ill.  Somebody couldn't afford an operation?  The local bank set up a special fund for conributions and everybody chipped in.  Or held a benefit.
> 
> The next town over was half destroyed by a tornado?  People for miles around came to help dig out, clear debris, rebuild, offer housing to the temporarily homeless.  The 'permanently' homeless were called hobos back then.  And they expected nothing for free but were more than willing to perform what odd jobs they could for a supply of food or shelter from the winter storm in the barn.  And the homeowners and local businesses always provided that.
> 
> ...


 
Very Well said , you hit it right on the head. And i really beleive that most would have no problem giving, but what so frustrating is exaclty what you describe. And this is what has to change.


----------



## jgarden (Aug 10, 2011)

Maple said:


> " Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery."
> - Winston Churchill


*Churchill's quote could also apply to the current situation in Britain's urban slums where the youth who have lost hope in a better future.

We've already had graphic examples (Egypt, Tunisia, Lybia, Syria) of what happens when a nation's wealth is controlled by a few "HAVES," while an increasing number of "HAVE NOTS" are no longer content to "play by the old rules!"*


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 10, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


Investments finance economic production. Increased production results in lower prices and higher real wages. It may be a blanket statement, but it holds true. 

Also, you referenced jobs being replaced by machines. It is incorrect to believe that automation leads to unemployment. To do so is to argue increased efficiency leads to unemployment. It is to argue more production is a bad thing. For example, when the tractor was invented far less workers were needed to plow fields. When the train was created, less people were needed to transport other people. In fact, judging by historical technological advancement, we should all be unemployed right now. But we are not. Automation frees up resources to be used to pursue other sectors. Temporary unemployment, of course, will result. But this type of employment is not a bad thing. For with more workers available, a company can produce something new that it could not have produced before. If people were all still plowing the fields because they feared the tractor would create unemployment, cars, computers, and many other goods would not exist because there would be no resources available to produce them.

Working less but producing the same amount of goods or more is the goal of production. Work is a means, not an ends in itself. For example, in 1907 a new car cost 2 years of labor. Today, a new car costs 8 months of labor, and the car has so many other technologies that it is a miracle in itself. It not only costs less labor to produce, but it is of an infinitely higher quality.

The middle class was not created by government. It was not created thanks to welfare and minimum wage. The middle class resulted because government was largely out of the free market. The poor were able to become wealthier. Private charity is plenty sufficient. The poor will not be asked to do more than anyone else. And the EPA is not private charity, and it has been largely disastrous.

You cannot create wealth by forcefully redistributing wealth. It has never worked, and it will never work.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 10, 2011)

jgarden said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > " Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the shared equality of misery."
> ...


And what put wealth in a few hands and alienated segments of society? *Government.*


----------



## dblack (Aug 10, 2011)

I guess what I've never really got about efforts to redistribute wealth, is that they seem to be based on an assumption that something was wrong with the way it was distributed in the first place. If that's the case, then we should fix the root cause, rather than engaging in all these remedial efforts after the fact.

So, that's my question: What's wrong with the system the leads to an unfair distribution of wealth, and how can we change that?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2011)

realife said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Before the federal government started being so benevolent, the states and local communities did take care of their own.   There were state hospitals for the indigent and mentally ill.  Somebody couldn't afford an operation?  The local bank set up a special fund for conributions and everybody chipped in.  Or held a benefit.
> ...



Americans have long been the most generous of all people.  And I think once the federal government resumes its constitutional authority instead of trying to appear to be all things to all people, that individual spirit of generosity and caring will rise again.


----------



## Wiseacre (Aug 10, 2011)

When the gov't gets into the business of redistributing wealth, they invite fraud, waste, and abuse into the system.   Aside from the inefficiencies, they pick winners and losers usually based on political reasons and the decisions they make are usually short term temporary things that are ephemeral in nature with no permanent improvement in the recipient's situation.    Resentment is fostered between those who benefited and those who didn't, and an already divided country gets more divisive.   Iy may be good politics that get's you re-elected, bad it's bad for the country.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 11, 2011)

Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.

As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits.  Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.

It's interesting that someone brought up the coalescence of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Do you realize that the Founding Fathers didn't want that? *gasp* How can he say that??? He doesn't know that! They were all wealthy landowners!  

Ahh...funny you should bring up property. The Founding Fathers wrote into the law of property two brilliant things. First of all there's a little legal principle called The Rule of Perpetuity. Basically the FF didn't want old families amassing more and more wealth and control over land, so they created property laws that, while still allowing property to be alienable (an ownership term, btw), stopped just such a coalescence of wealth.  The second thing they did was set up a system where if you die without a will...your property goes to THE STATE! (yes it's the individual state and not the federal gov't...but that's splitting hairs).

Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to "people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense."

The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.

Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan.  Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote.  I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.
> 
> As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits.  Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.
> 
> ...



Raising taxes will only provide more money to spend.  That is not what will fix our current economic crisis which is a spending and debt problem rather than a revenue problem.  Not since FDR proved you can obtain unquestioning adoration and votes from the people by giving them what they do not merit and have not earned has the government been fiscally responsible.  And since that time it has spent every single penny it has received and used increased revenues as justification for borrowing more.  Not a penny has been used to pay down the debt.

It didn't happen overnight, but gradually the ability to favor one group over another so increased the power, prestige, authority, influence, and personal advantage of those in  government, that has largely became the purpose of government.  Our fearless leaders and government bureaucrats no longer care if they actually do good.  They only wish to allocate huge sums of money for things with noble sounding titles because they thereby enrich themselves. 

We've now reach the tipping point that the government has run out of our money.  The debt now approximates the entire GDP.   If we don't stop the insanity, we lose the America that the Founders gave us.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.
> ...



I agree. The problem lies in that we over spend.  We can raise taxes ten fold tomorrow but by the day after Congress will increase spending by twenty fold.  Therein lies the problem.

Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.

Immie


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Carry it to its logical conclusion.  If you deem that need trumps ownership then essentially you have abolished the right of ownership of private property.  Once (and its already happened here by the way) a society determines that a class, group or establishment (usually in the form of government) has the authority to declare that a need on one individual's part dictates a debt on the part of another member then all that body needs to do is declare that anything is a need and it becomes subject to confiscation. 

Simply, if the government determines that every person needs a million dollar home then it has already been empowerd (via starry decisis) to confiscate millions of dollers to satisfy the debt of society.  

This is evident in the debate in texas about the prisoners without AC.  20 years ago nobody would have declared the right of prisoners (who have forfieted certain rights based on behavior) to have A/C... now it seems that we can confiscate (or tax) the property of free, law abiding citizens in order to provide for the "right to comfort" of prisoners.  

No, it is not moral.

Mike


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike--welcome to USMB by the way--hit the one critical point that should be the deciding factor in this whole debate.

If government can require one citizen to give of his property or labor for the targeted benefit of another, you can throw the whole concept of unalienable rights out the window.

Unalienable rights are what made the United States separate from, different from, unique from, and better than any other nation that has ever existed.  No other nation had even acknowledged, much less put unalienable rights at the core of all that the nation shall be.

If you can legally take what I ethically and legally earned or acquired and give it for the benefit of another, I have no rights.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Texanmike--welcome to USMB by the way--hit the one critical point that should be the deciding factor in this whole debate.
> 
> If government can require one citizen to give of his property or labor for the targeted benefit of another, you can throw the whole concept of unalienable rights out the window.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the welcome.  

The problem with a lot of people's opinions is that they do not carry their theories to the logical conclusion.  

Mike


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 11, 2011)

The ONLY result of higher taxes is more money to spend? NOPE. FALSE.

I'll grant you that Congress has an extreme proclivity to overspend, but, if they do what we're asking them to do...and cut the budget...then more money gets applied to the debt and it goes down faster. I mean, holy hell, why all the "sky is falling" bullshit if we're not in a crisis or an emergency?

Picture it like this. You've got a huge bucket you need to fill with water. You can either use two sources of water or one...and you're under a time constraint. Assuming they both have water coming out of them, are you going turn one off and just hope you get it filled with the remaining one?

No!  Decrease the spending AND bring in more money. That's why the crazy analogy of "even if you confiscated the wealth of the top 20% of the wealthy it still wouldnt pay off the national debt" is so retarded. Of course it wouldn't. But if you collect money over time....through taxes....then the debt goes down and is more easily equalized on a year by year basis.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> The ONLY result of higher taxes is more money to spend? NOPE. FALSE.
> 
> I'll grant you that Congress has an extreme proclivity to overspend, but, if they do what we're asking them to do...and cut the budget...then more money gets applied to the debt and it goes down faster. I mean, holy hell, why all the "sky is falling" bullshit if we're not in a crisis or an emergency?
> 
> ...



It hasn't gone down in more than 70 years despite tax increase after tax increase after tax increase.  The more in taxes the government collects, the faster the debt clock runs.

How many decades does it take to convince you that government does not and will not have the discipline to address the debt until we cut off their money supply?


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> The ONLY result of higher taxes is more money to spend? NOPE. FALSE.
> 
> I'll grant you that Congress has an extreme proclivity to overspend, but, if they do what we're asking them to do...and cut the budget...then more money gets applied to the debt and it goes down faster. I mean, holy hell, why all the "sky is falling" bullshit if we're not in a crisis or an emergency?
> 
> ...



Aren't you assuming that higher taxes wouldn't hurt the economy?  Who do you propose to tax? What is your ideal tax rate?

Mike


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.
> 
> Immie



Part of the problem is the system.  We allow the same entity that is capable of printing money to spend the majority of the money.  If we would return to the idea that the federal government cannot spend money without the permission of the States (enumerated powers anyone?) then we would get this under control.  


Mike


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.
> ...



All we have to do to get a handle on it is to remove the power of the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, entity, and/or organization without equally benefitting all regardless of poliical ideology or socioeconomic circumstances.  That would eliminate most of the corruption in government, would shrink the government to a manageable size, would not compromise national security or any of the necessary functions of government, and would also eliminate many of the negative consequences to the people as a result of 'free' government money.

In order to not break faith with those we have made dependent on 'free' government money, just at it has slowly accrued and crept up on us, we would need to slowly and carefully start now to reverse the entitlement programs and return them to the states where they should have been all along.  But we would no longer be increasing or expanding those programs but bit by bit cut them back untl they are gone at the federal level.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Until Congress decides to be fiscally responsible nothing is going to get better.
> ...



Part of the problem?  Hehe, I would have to say that is a pretty big part.  

Welcome to USMB.

Immie


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 11, 2011)

Voodoo Reaganomics has been redistributing wealth for 30 years- the wealthy have tripled their wealth while everyone else has suffered. The top 400 FAMILIES have more than the bottom 60%. The top 1% has more than the bottom 90%. Pub Dupes!! Destroy medicare, save the rich! How DUMB and misled can you get can you get? Our physical and mental infrastucture is fallong apart too...a total catastrophe.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Foxfyre,

I love you (in a purely platonic way) but you are living in an utopian dreamworld if you actually believe that can happen.

The new code for Congress is... "Congress shall make no laws that remove power from Congress in any way, shape or form whether it be tax related or in any other form.  Any such laws that appear on the floor of Congress shall be shot down immediately and the representative(s) responsible will be severely reprimanded and if necessary censured until reformed."

Immie


----------



## Lovebears65 (Aug 11, 2011)

I have no problem giving to the poor but I want to do it on my terms not the governments.   The libs think they are giving to the poor by just paying taxes when the conservatives are doing other ways as well!  I help a family here in town that has two small children. I buy them food , gas clothes  and anything else they need. They do not go to the government because  they are to proud but I cant see children go without so I buy for them!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> Voodoo Reaganomics has been redistributing wealth for 30 years- the wealthy have tripled their wealth while everyone else has suffered. The top 400 FAMILIES have more than the bottom 60%. The top 1% has more than the bottom 90%. Pub Dupes!! Destroy medicare, save the rich! How DUMB and misled can you get can you get? Our physical and mental infrastucture is fallong apart too...a total catastrophe.



The top tax rates have been cut and the "rich" pay an ever larger portion of all taxes collected. 
How does allowing people to keep more become redistribution?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers.  They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.

That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.


I am not saying automation does not lead to a loss of jobs. Of course if a company buys new machines and then lays off some workers those jobs will be lost. This is what has happened throughout history. But it is not correct to think this will result in permanent unemployment, or a _net_ loss of jobs. The unemployment resulting from automation is temporary and desirable for it allows the economy to move forward and expand production in other areas. If there were never unemployment, we would still be living in caves, as I mentioned before. If there is never unemployment, then the economy can never change.

Automation will result in lower priced goods due to the increase in supply and reduced costs of production. As a result, consumers will have more money to demand other goods with, thus calling for an increase in production in other sectors. This production will be met by the need for more employment, and workers will get jobs again in new sectors. Even if automation is used instead, the process will continue and eventually the workers will be employed.

The complain levied against automation is that it will require the need for less work. But the tractor also requires the need for less work, as do electric tools, and numerous other inventions throughout time. To argue that automation will _ever_ cause permanent unemployment is to argue that efficiency in production hurts the economy. That is simply following the argument against automation to its logical conclusion, which turns out to be illogical.



> As for the "free market", I'm glad we can politely disagree. The "invisible hand" metaphor is a bit more accurate, as independent actors drive markets, despite centrally-planned economics of governments or multi-country summits.  Unfortunately, there is no truly free market with the regulations governments and theocracies have always put in place to control their populaces.


The free market exists, but that is not an accurate way to describe our current economy. We have a corporatist economy, with elements of the free market trying to influence it.



> Money and Power...even if you've worked for it honestly...leads to leverage. Yes, that's a great thing, but people are self-interested. So the history of the world amounts to *"people with money and power using their money and power to retain their money and power at others' expense.*"


Very true. And government is the institution these people go to so they can retain that power.



> The government can't make the entire world fair and put unicorns under Christmas Trees...but what it can do it help raise the standard of living of the people who deserve it, despite falling on hard times, thereby helping all of us.
> 
> Spending cuts, while the single most important measure we can take, aren't the only thing we need to be doing to save our country. A rise in taxes coupled with hawkish analysis of waste HAS to be a part of the plan.  Obama folded like a pair of wet panties to the conservatives, so it's doubtful he'll be getting my vote.  I'm willing to vote conservative this time perhaps...if we can get the budget under control...with the caveat that once we do...we're going to have to balance THAT with helping those who need it in this country.


How will a rise in taxes, which function to remove wealth from the private economy, save the economy? I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Couple of big if's in there.  

Immie


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers.  They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.
> 
> That 'eternal optimist' isn't under my screen name for nothing.



It has nothing to do with the people in power. It is the system. Until we call an article V, make significant Amendments to or rewrite the Constitution... this won't get fixed.  I posted my plan in another thread won't bother to repeat it here but the system itself is broken.

Mike


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It CAN and WILL happen if we stop demonizing visionaries like the Tea Party, Tax Reform groups, 9/12ers and such--if we start objecting to the Administration, media, and Congress who demonize them--before the government culture corrupts those being elected as intended reformers.  They are our last great hope to save the magnificent nation the Founders gave us.
> ...


We don't need to rewrite the Constitution, we just need to follow it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Picture it like this. You've got a huge bucket you need to fill with water. You can either use two sources of water or one...and you're under a time constraint. Assuming they both have water coming out of them, are you going turn one off and just hope you get it filled with the remaining one?



If the house is burning down, using the hose to fill the bucket so that you can throw the bucket on the fire, rather than letting the hose run the fire sprinklers is rather stupid.

The economic engine of industry is the ultimate answer to the debacle we are in, raising taxes crushes what little growth we have, turns the hose feeding the fire sprinklers off if you will. It's ill advised and will do far more harm than good.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I disagree.  I revere the document but there are some significant shortcomings in it.  They could be Amended out I suppose but I don't know that it would happen.

Mike


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...


I have my assumptions about what you call shortcomings, but I have to ask you yourself: what are those shortcomings?


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 11, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Automation doesn't necessarily lead to unemployment, but it can. In the example I created, it did. You can't say that all automation leads to new jobs. Sometimes it doesn't. I never stated that ALL automation leads to losses of jobs, but I can see how you'd assume I thought that, since other people think that as a matter of course.
> ...



Private corporations have their own politics and favoritism, my friend. Larger or small, often times it's all who you know or what you last name is.

How will a rise in taxes save the economy? By lowering the debt. If you have a bucket with two hoses - one spending cuts and the other tax revenue - that's going to fill the bucket twice as fast as just one (we can argue about the proportions, I just said twice for brevity's sake).

It's mind-numbing to me that this extreme meme of "the government should NEVER take our money" has gone out of control.  I'm not advocating wasteful or unconstitutional spending, but if the American people voice their will by voting for people who vote for programs...the only recourse is to vote the bums out and vote in different people!

Somehow this idea of keeping the rich fat and happy is going to make them benevolently create jobs has taken root...and it's insane.  Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



I agree with quite a bit of what you say, but the reason corporations are not investing in this country is because of a political attitude hell bent on driving them away or under.  

Immie


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Hmm.  Where to start?

The Supreme court having life time appointments is probabaly the most glaring.  The supreme court SHOULD answer to the states, (not in congress).  

The 17th Amendment is another example.  

Much of the language.  The "commerce" clause, for example.  At the time it was clear what it meant (see the Potomac Company debates) but the language is problematic because most people (either intentionally or unintentionally) are ignorant as to the original purpose of the clause.  

It should probably include a glossery of terms for clarification.  That would have been extremely useful.  

It is a wonderful document but it is flawed.  I'm fine with amendments if you can close all of the loopholes because we don't follow the original intent. I know, I'm crazy for thinking we should consider the original intent of the clauses.

Mike


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


It is only when these corporations make money because of government that there is a problem.



> How will a rise in taxes save the economy? By lowering the debt. If you have a bucket with two hoses - one spending cuts and the other tax revenue - that's going to fill the bucket twice as fast as just one (we can argue about the proportions, I just said twice for brevity's sake).


So lowering the debt will save the economy. I agree. Your hose metaphor does not work because there are different side effects to taxation and spending cuts. They both have the potential effect of reducing the deficit, but the spending hose is filled with water and the tax raising hose is mixed with petroleum.



> It's mind-numbing to me that this extreme meme of "the government should NEVER take our money" has gone out of control.  I'm not advocating wasteful or unconstitutional spending, but if the American people voice their will by voting for people who vote for programs...the only recourse is to vote the bums out and vote in different people!


I don't recall anyone saying government should never tax. I think you fabricated that on your own.



> Somehow this idea of keeping the rich fat and happy is going to make them benevolently create jobs has taken root...and it's insane.


This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for _everyone._ You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.

It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.



> Corporations are doing better than they ever have, but wont invest based on risk. The calculation of risk and reward isn't generally favorable due to an uncertain economic climate. So don't depend on these people (I'm one of them, btw) to suddenly start being magnanimous.


Corporations are doing better than ever? Is that why government had to bail them out so they wouldn't fail? Complete bullshit. Nobody is counting on corporations to be magnanimous--they don't have to be. But many mistakenly count on government to be magnanimous, which is the irony of your statement.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I actually think we may have to have a balanced budget amendment to curb Congress's insatiable appetite to spend the people's money for anything and everything that they think looks or sounds good to somebody.  We are not only fighting a power-hungry and self-absorbed Congressional and Presidential leadership, but we also have to contend with increasingly liberal courts who, given any opening, will bend the Constitution in ways it was never intended.

And I think we may have to have a Constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from using the people's money to benefit ANY special interest to keep Congress from imposing more and more taxes to balance the budget they are required to balance.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



Why not pay congress more, give them better retirements and increase the number of congressmen? 

Mike


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



How would that help anything?  I have been advocating taking away all benefits for Congressional representativs.  Make them fund their own 401K plans, healthcare, etc. or let the states do that for them if they want.  But nobody should be able to use their public service to acquire multi-million dollar lifetime retirement plans or retire in grand style on the public dime.   Take away that AND ability of Congress to use the people's money to buy influence and favors and you have people running for office who wish to serve their country again instead of wanting in for their own self-serving purposes.

And you have voters who want competent public servants in office again instead of the person they think will funnel the most goodies in their direction.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I would advocate a 1.5 million dollar salary and a 500k/yr pension.  I would say that in exchange for those terms you agree to never receive compensation for anything you do after you retire. You can work at a charity but you can't hold a job, ever.  If you receive a dime after that you immediately lose all retirement benefits.

The reson I say this is I don't think you will ever attract even a simple majority of congressmen who's primary concern is not their own pocket book.  By paying them 1.5 million a year and guaranteeing a 500k/yr pension without the posibility of working you make it virtually impossible to "buy" their votes with promises of high paying jobs/book deals after their term.  At the same time, it makes them more concerned about their constituants because the drop from 1.5 mil to .5 million is a pretty significant drop in pay.  Increase the number of congressmen to one for every 200,000 residents.   

I know that your overall payroll increases but I think you will make up for that 1000 fold by eliminating the corruption and purchasing of votes by special interest groups. At the same time, you increase accountability.  Right now the general population feels hopeless about changing the political landscape.  Why?  Senators represent as many as 17 MILLION voters and Representatives represent on average 827,000 people.  How can they effectively represent a block of people that large?

While you're at it, undo the 17th amendment and give the states (who founded the union to begin with) representation in the federal government.  

Look, I know its radical. It sounds crazy if you look at the numbers but it is slightly less crazy than expecting to get 535 decent men to represent us in the current system.  We've been doing that for the better part of 250 years and look where its gotten us.

Mike


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



Maybe I'm too idealist, but I still see your plan as attracting only people who are in it for their personal gain instead of any kind of commitment to doing what is best for the country.

Until about 70 years ago, we had no trouble attracting citizen legislators who served their country for a time in Congress and then went home to live under the laws they passed.  I do not doubt for a minute that there are men and women of similar character now who would serve to make a difference if we make that the norm.

Campaigns would no longer be multi-million or billion dollar enterprises which would allow many people to participate who are currently shut out of the system.  Lobbyists would lobby for better laws for everybody instead of benefits for their clients.   And there would be no incentive to pull dirty tricks or do anything however immoral to stay in office as it would not increase one's benefits or fortune to do so.

And there would be no incentive to sign up ignorant and incompetent voters just to get somebody into office on the strength of that person rewarding them in some way.  There would be little reason to cheat.  And almost all of the corruption now apparent in Congress would be eliminated as well as the corrupting effect on the beneficiaries of Congressional benevolence.


----------



## oreo (Aug 11, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Under this admininstration's policies--"We're supposed to punish success while rewarding failure."

*So much for the "LAND OF OPPORTUNITY"-*-


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 11, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



*Yes, they are my friend. The doom and gloom of the lame stream media might have you fooled, but it's true.

Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
(unprecedented cash reserves)

Why Recession Fears Are Overblown - Rick Newman (usnews.com)
(big us companies are in great shape)

Corporate Profits Are Up. And The Average American Worker? Let Them Eat An iPad! » Principled Progressive

A boom in corporate profits, a bust in jobs, wages - Yahoo! Finance
(boom in corporate profits)

Yeah, the market correction has helped business...and it's been helping business for awhile now.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



They're saving their money until they see how bad Obamacare turns out.

Repeal Obamacare and they'll start hiring and growing now.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


What is immoral about giving your son a job? If your son is bad at the job, it is not immoral to give him the job, only stupid. Again, the only one who ever mentioned government being the only institution with immoral business practices is you. I never mentioned anything of the sort.



> *
> The hose metaphor is simplistic, but it does work. While there are definitely different effects to the two methods, somehow lots of conservatives want to perpetuate the myth that tax money couldn't possibly lower the debt of our nation.*


I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best _means_ to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.



> *Their argument, in part, is based on comparing the size of the debt to the size of existing wealth. If you perpetuate that assertion, you're misguided. Tax money spends just as good as budget cuts. In fact, budget cuts mean less taxes. If we reduce the debt from the bottom up and the top down, both together will speed the recovery. *


If you taxed the top 1% at 100%, you could not pay off the debt. Such arguments are in response to those who demand _only_ tax increases and _no_ spending cuts. Also, how to you figure budget cuts mean tax decreases? Increasing the budget obviously has not led to tax increases. What you are ignoring is that tax hikes also have negative economic effects. If the end goal is a better economy, you have to look at _all_ the affects of a given policy on everyone, not just one affect (reducing the debt) on one group (government). You are correct both will speed the reduction of debt, but it does not follow that reducing the debt by any means will equally speed the recovery.



> This is not about keeping the rich happy. This is about doing what is best for _everyone._ You misunderstand how the free market works. As said by Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest." Corporations don't have to be benevolent to create jobs, nor do the rich. But in pursuing their own economic prosperity they inevitably do. Their money is not underneath a mattress. It is invested, and those investments function to grow the economy.
> 
> It is a silly idea that a policy that benefits the rich hurts the poor, and a policy that hurts the rich (higher taxes) must benefit the poor.
> 
> ...


First of all, nobody is advocating that we give the job builders more money. What is being advocated is that we stop taking money from them. The money is rightfully theirs in the first place, not government's. It is their property. I am not a trickle down economist, so appeals against such a philosophy are meaningless to me. I follow the Austrian school. My comment does not presuppose only one option. There is investment or consumption. Consumption will result in the purchase of more goods and services, thus increasing demand for those goods and services. Investment, another option, is one yo uare probably aware. What you are presupposing is that corporations just sit on their money and hoard it, doing nothing with it. This money is either held in bank accounts, through which it can be loaned to start other projects, or in investments, which also provides funding for production. Money is not hoarded under mattresses. Furthermore, if for some reason money _is_ hoarded under mattresses (which is pretty much never), or if banks refuse to loan (closer to the current situation), it is because certain conditions in the economy are not favorable for investment or business creation. And when you have massive regulations, a Federal Reserve that controls monetary policy and sets interest rates below the market price, and massive new government programs that could change where money must be put, you bet economic growth will be hindered.



> *Yes, they are my friend. The doom and gloom of the lame stream media might have you fooled, but it's true.
> 
> Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
> (unprecedented cash reserves)
> ...


There has been little market correction. Government intervention continually tries to prevent it. Corporations are in bed with government, and are given bailouts when they should have failed. Heard of TARP? This is exactly what I was saying earlier. These current profits are examples of profits earned because of government. You seem to forget that key point. Also, the Federal Reserve has been creating  massive amounts of money, which end up in the hands of corporations. The increase in supply of money decreases its purchasing power, thus raising prices. Prices are raised depending where the money goes. The reason profits are up is not because of the market, but because of government once again wrongly assuming throwing money at a problem will fix it. The problem is government intervention in the market, trying to sustain a corporate bubble, rather than allowing it to correct. Blaming the profits on the correction process when they are a result of the hindrance of that process is a gross distortion.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
> (unprecedented cash reserves)



So do you think Obama should just confiscate those cash reserves, for the good of the party?

Also, did you happen to notice something?

1. Citigroup $526B - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions
2. JPMorgan Chase $414B  - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions
3. Wells Fargo $112B
4. General Electric $82B  - bailed out by Obama to the tune of Billions - Obama's Job Czar and moving 50,000 jobs to China
5. Microsoft $53B


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 11, 2011)

Vanquish, I suggest you read this article.
Adding Up the Government?s Total Bailout Tab - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Government has spent 2.5 trillion on bailouts. And you wonder why these companies have profits? Think about it. People are buying less because people are making less. The costs of production, because of inflation, are rising. Why on earth would company profits be increasing under these conditions? The answer is government intervention.

In fact, the GE  bailout, which amount to over 100 billion, is larger than its current holdings.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



A balanced budget is not the trick.  Hell, I could write a balanced budget for the government with no problem.  All I have to do is add up all the planned spending and then throw in the tax revenue followed by boosting the "expected" revenue to meet the planned expenses and voila! we have a balanced budget. 

What has to happen is that they have to be held to the budget and held accountable for it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Immie


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 12, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...






Uncensored2008 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Companies sit on $2T as economy tanks - NYPOST.com
> ...



See that's the kind of bullshit question that doesn't advance the fucking topic at all. Of course I don't advocate that. In fact, if you weren't lazy and would read what I post, I've already discussed the lame meme of "confiscating the wealth of the rich". FFS, think before you post.

Either you get that money from two sources (albeit with their own side effects) is faster than one source or you don't. I can't suddenly wake you up to that fact.

As far as your bailouts...you're cherry picking 5 companies and declaring victory. Hell, I'll even grant you that GE is a behemoth, but compare the total GDP to the contribution from those companies ...then go sit at the kiddie table.

Of course tax cuts are returning money that doesn't belong to the government. I've explained that myself before in this very thread. (It's amazing how when some people want to get their spew out of their mouth, they disregard the person they're talking to so they can hear themselves talk.)  

The immutable fact remains that we ALL ran up this bill. Every citizen and illegal in the country. We are ALL responsible for paying it back.  The fact that people with money and power can use their advantages to pay less is something that we, as a society, can change.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 12, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> See that's the kind of bullshit question that doesn't advance the fucking topic at all.



Yeah, what was I thinking pointing out the connection to Dear Leader?



> Of course I don't advocate that.



Where did I claim you advocated anything?

I pointed out a connection between these profits and looting of the US Treasury with the collusion of Dear Leader.



> As far as your bailouts...you're cherry picking 5 companies and declaring victory.



Cherry picking? Dude, I took the top five from the list YOU posted.



> Hell, I'll even grant you that GE is a behemoth, but compare the total GDP to the contribution from those companies ...then go sit at the kiddie table.



You make no sense, it appears that you are acting out because you got caught.



> Of course tax cuts are returning money that doesn't belong to the government. I've explained that myself before in this very thread. (It's amazing how when some people want to get their spew out of their mouth, they disregard the person they're talking to so they can hear themselves talk.)



So, in your mind, there is your position, then the position of everyone else? (The _enemy_.)

You are off on tangents I said nothing about.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 12, 2011)

Yes, we all ran up the bill because we don't pay close attention in good times but are focusing on living our own lives working, worshipping, socializing, building, spending, and doing what people do.  Meanwhile those in government have been benefitting themselves by capitalizing on our inattention, reassuring us with really noble sounding stuff, and lying about a lot of it.   And it got out of hand which is what happens to us when we neglect just about anything important:  relationships, our property, our work, our infrastructure, etc.

Then one day the sh*t hits the fan and we can't ignore it any more.  We either cave in and allow the worse to happen, or we get busy and set things back on track however painful that might be due to us letting things deteriorate.

Well the fan is pretty shitty now and we either patch up the worst spots here and there and lose the incredible freedoms, opportunities, options, prosperity that has made this such a remarkable and great nation, or we acknowledge we screwed up and do the necessary repairs.

The repair for the nation is to stop and reverse spending and put policies and restraints in place so that this cannot happen again.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > See that's the kind of bullshit question that doesn't advance the fucking topic at all.
> ...


*
No, apparently you can't keep track of a conversation or are in over your head.*


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 12, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> What's immoral about it? If it's at the expense of someone who deserved a promotion, but you give it to your son...that's immoral.


Why are you assuming the son does not also deserve the promotion? As I said, if the son was incompetent and did not deserve the job, his father would be an idiot for hiring him and his company would suffer.



> Holy fuck you are annoying. The whole point of what you wrote at the section you wrote it in was that government was somehow more immoral than private business.  I'm going to have to scroll back again...and prove you wrong again. It's almost pointless, because I'll do the work of going back and you'll just deny what's in front of your face.


That wasn't my point at all. My point was that government is less efficient.




> > I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.
> 
> 
> Ok. There you go. YOUR quote.  You're saying that private business does not operate subject to politics and favoritism. Quote "the Austrian school" all you want, but if you don't realize that private business can be petty and immoral, then you've got NO grasp on reality


Again, I never said they don't act immoral. I am saying that the primary motive of the private sector is profit and loss, and the primary motive of government is politics. Do you disagree?

I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best _means_ to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.




> If you taxed the top 1% at 100%, you could not pay off the debt. Such arguments are in response to those who demand _only_ tax increases and _no_ spending cuts. Also, how to you figure budget cuts mean tax decreases? Increasing the budget obviously has not led to tax increases. What you are ignoring is that tax hikes also have negative economic effects. If the end goal is a better economy, you have to look at _all_ the affects of a given policy on everyone, not just one affect (reducing the debt) on one group (government). You are correct both will speed the reduction of debt, but it does not follow that reducing the debt by any means will equally speed the recovery.
> 
> 
> First of all, nobody is advocating that we give the job builders more money. What is being advocated is that we stop taking money from them. The money is rightfully theirs in the first place, not government's. It is their property. I am not a trickle down economist, so appeals against such a philosophy are meaningless to me. I follow the Austrian school. My comment does not presuppose only one option.
> ...


In otherwords, you have no argument other than ad hominem. Ok.



> There is investment or consumption. Consumption will result in the purchase of more goods and services, thus increasing demand for those goods and services. Investment, another option, is one yo uare probably aware. What you are presupposing is that corporations just sit on their money and hoard it, doing nothing with it. This money is either held in bank accounts, through which it can be loaned to start other projects, or in investments, which also provides funding for production. Money is not hoarded under mattresses. Furthermore, if for some reason money _is_ hoarded under mattresses (which is pretty much never), or if banks refuse to loan (closer to the current situation), it is because certain conditions in the economy are not favorable for investment or business creation. And when you have massive regulations, a Federal Reserve that controls monetary policy and sets interest rates below the market price, and massive new government programs that could change where money must be put, you bet economic growth will be hindered.





> Of course, even when not being spent, money isn't put under mattresses. Thanks for being pedantic. You continue to regurgitate the same stuff that I've posted and others have posted earlier in the thread about risk and market uncertainty.



I am pedantic for stating my argument? Would you prefer I call you a twerp instead? So far you have not responded to anything I have said in my last post.



> The typical conservative knee-jerk reactions to regulations. Sure, some regulations are bad, some are good. Some protect. Some hinder business. If you'd like to get specific on which ones have what effect, perhaps we can see where we overlap in our thinking. Otherwise, the hackneyed platitudes about regulations are just clutter.


I am not a conservative, first of all. Second, my original comment was simply that corporations make money immorally through government. Of course if they commit business fraud that too is immoral, but such a statement I felt would be obvious and unnecessary to say. In the end they are arrested and prosecuted for business fraud, so they can hardly be said to make money.The fact that government offers this path to making money is not the fault of corporations, but the government.



> At least you concede that trickle-down theory doesn't work. Which was the point of what I was saying. If you'd stick to what I was discussing and not bring up other bullshit, you wouldnt have to waste all those kilocalories typing drivel that doesnt impress anyone.


You are stuck in this fairytale world where there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. There are many other schools of economic thought, some in support of the free market, others not, that have differing opinions. If you think that is bullshit, then you are simply wrong and ignorant of reality.

Your argument amounted to strawman after strawman and ad hominem, nothing more. _That_, my friend, is the definition of bullshit.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 12, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > What's immoral about it? If it's at the expense of someone who deserved a promotion, but you give it to your son...that's immoral.
> ...



*Not really, but if that let's you sleep at night...go for it. Snuggle right in.  You condescend as if you're Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and the Oracle at Delphi all wrapped up in one. Here's a wake up call...you're not.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 12, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> *Without going to the trouble of scrolling back, either I'm responding directly to something you said...or maybe I'm not addressing you/making a new point.*
> 
> It appears your are responding to something said by the voices in your head.
> 
> ...



I commented on the correlation between the profits of these corporations and the looting of the public treasury. 

I understand that you cannot address that, thus your need to delve off into tangents.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 12, 2011)

> Because it was MY hypothetical. You can come up with all the possible alternative hypos you want...but MINE was in response to a discussion of some dork in this thread saying that politics and favoritism don't exist in private business...which is, frankly an asinine comment.


Sorry, but a father giving his son a high paying position when the son is an idiot does not happen in the real world. Your hypothetical is meaningless.



> > Again, I never said they don't act immoral. I am saying that the primary motive of the private sector is profit and loss, and the primary motive of government is politics. Do you disagree?
> 
> 
> 
> With this portion typed right above? No. Business is business and government is government. We can both agree that government is, overall, less efficient than private business. *Being motivated by profit doesn't make businesses better than private enterprise* in all areas because you're comparing apples and orangutans. There are some things that only government has the authority to and silly comparisons to private businesses are failed parallels.


Business _is_ private enterprise. What on earth are you trying to say? My argument has consistently been that the private sector is more efficient than government because when the private sector does act immorally there are consequences because of profit and loss. When government acts immorally, that is not necessarily the case.



> [quote[I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best _means_ to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.



No...it's not actually. Because the way you just parsed it out above isn't the way I've heard ANYONE make that argument. Get your head out of your ass.[/quote]
Then you clearly do not understand the arguments of anyone. I, for one, never made the argument in the form you like to posit on everyone else.



> No, you obviously can't go back and read what you said with an objective eye.


Whether you like it or not, calling me a twerp and saying my head is in my ass is ad hominem. That is the objective truth of your attitude in this conversation.



> No. You're pedantic for fluffing a paragraph full of kindergarten platitudes and using tonal words to make it sound like you're the only genius who gets them.


It does not take a genius to understand them, nor I am the only one that does. But for some reason, you don't.



> > > At least you concede that trickle-down theory doesn't work. Which was the point of what I was saying. If you'd stick to what I was discussing* and not bring up other bullshit*, you wouldnt have to waste all those kilocalories typing drivel that doesnt impress anyone.
> >
> >
> > You are stuck in this fairytale world where there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. There are many other schools of economic thought, some in support of the free market, others not, that have differing opinions. If you think that is bullshit, then you are simply wrong and ignorant of reality.
> ...


Calling something bullshit is not a premise.



> Not really, but if that let's you sleep at night...go for it. Snuggle right in.  You condescend as if you're Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and the Oracle at Delphi all wrapped up in one. Here's a wake up call...you're not.


More ad hominem.

Here is how you have presented your position.
1) With a hypothetical that, when questioned about how legitimate it was, you retorted that it was your hypothetical and I cannot question it because it is yours.
2) My head is in my ass.
3) What I say is bullshit.
4) I am not Thomas Jefferson, but according to you I think I am.
5) I am pedantic
6) My arguments are kindergarten platitudes
7) With various strawman arguments, which I call out as such, and after which you follow up by resorting to methods 1-6 above.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 12, 2011)

There you go. Cherry picking again.

Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.

It makes absolutely no fucking sense that you attempt to disprove my hypothetical by making up another hypothetical that is MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE in its proof!! Dumbed down for yo ass... that at the point I came up with a hypo that disproved your assertion...I won.  The additional pieces of shit hypos that you came up with didn't disprove what I said.

Let's recap...

1. You said that government was inefficient because it is rife with "politics and favoritism".
2. I said that private businesses have those too.
3. That assertion, by me, was challenged.
4. I gave a hypothetical situation, very true to life, that illustrated how private business is rife with "politics and favoritism".
5. Some retarded person questioned why my hypo "had to have" nepotism...as if that invalidated the hypo..which it didnt.

Do you see how insane you are?

You can't even defend yourself properly. I've asked you to show me where I said " there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. " I'm still waiting.



> Calling something bullshit is not a premise.


I never said it was. You've got to be typing this just to fuck with me. No one can have such poor reading comprehension skills.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 12, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > *Without going to the trouble of scrolling back, either I'm responding directly to something you said...or maybe I'm not addressing you/making a new point.*
> ...



I never went off into tangents. I quoted you...then replied directly and on-topic. Your attempt to mischaracterize me is simply a retarded excuse for coming back with an actual argument.

I don't erect straw men. That would be a complete waste of time on my part. I come here to discuss things directly and achieve some semblance of forward progress in a discussion. That's not what you want. I get it. You fancy these boards a way to rant and rave and stick it to whomever you think your opponent is that day. That's cool. But at the point where you can't actually hold a worthwhile conversation and devolve into mischaracterizing what I say...don't expect me to continue.


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 12, 2011)

> > Calling something bullshit is not a premise.
> 
> 
> I never said it was. You've got to be typing this just to fuck with me. No one can have such poor reading comprehension skills.




You're wasting my time. Goodbye.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Aug 12, 2011)

America is supposed to be a Republic not a Plutocracy.  

We need to end the GOP&#8217;s drive to turn us away from our ideals and back into a world of serfs and lords.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> America is supposed to be a Republic not a Plutocracy.
> 
> We need to end the GOPs drive to turn us away from our ideals and back into a world of serfs and lords.



Resisting the left's drive for ever larger government is an attempt to turn us "back into a world of serfs and lords"? LOL!
I know where you stand on legalizing drugs.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 12, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> There you go. Cherry picking again.
> 
> Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.
> 
> ...



I think the problem with your hypothetical is that you are arguing that it *does* happen.  In all honesty, I agree it does but I think that you should have provided a real example. I definitely believe that would strengthen your argument.

I will respond to your hypothetical with a modified (namely because I don't have my mouse and scrolling on my laptop fingerpad is a PITA) version. 

The problem with government being wasteful and corrupt is that the corruption and inefficiency is unavoidable and unaccountable.  You and I cannot avoid corruption in the government, we have no choice to pay for it and on top of that, the government (specifically the federal government) has no profit/loss motive.  

Take the father who hires his son.  You and I can avoid buying into the system.  You and I can simply not do business and not invest with companies we believe operate in that manner.   Also, politics and favoritism in a private company, if allowed to run too long (in the case of the idiot son) will eventually be punished at a price to the people that perpetrate the crime.  When it happens in government the people are the ones that are punished.  That doesn't happen in government. Inefficiency, corruption, favoritism and politics results in an ever increasing debt on the public bankroll which the citizens do not have any choice but to pay.

Mike


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 15, 2011)

That's a bit better response.

As for taking a real example, who says I didnt? Would names of people and companies make the situation any less valid? There's no need to have a reaction to the word "hypo" itself. In fact, it could have happened with my father's company and could have involved me 

I would put forth that in private companies you and I don't get to vote people in and out...(unless you're a stockholder in a publicly-traded company, but that's not most businesses)...and therefore government is MORE accountable than private business.  That's supposed to be the point of government...by the people, for the people, of the people?

But I can't deny that I agree government often seems just the opposite. The state education department here in Alabama is so corrupt that Tony Soprano looks like an altar boy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 15, 2011)

In the final review, the question is:  how much are we willing to turn over of our labor, wealth, options, and opportunities to government to do things for us when it is obvious that government is primarily interested in feathering its own nest?

If you believe you can spend your money more wisely and to your better benefit than the government will do it for you, then you are a fiscal conservative promoting  small, efficient, effective government that does nothing that cannot be done better by the private sector.

If you believe in unalienable rights, personal liberties, and that the pursuit of happiness requires you choosing what choices, opportunities, and options you will take advantage of, and the people, not government, should decide what sort of society we will have, you are a free trader and constituional originalist.

A fallacy is that we must allow the federal government to 'do it' because the state governments are so corrupt.  In what dream world do people come to the conclusion that the Peter Principle works any better in government than it does in the private sector?  A corrupt state politician is not going to miraculously become a virtuous saint if you send him to Washington.  If he would be corrupt at home, he will be corrupt anywhere, so. . . .

Why not at least keep the corruption less expensive by keeping more of it in the states and assigning less of it to the federal government just adding more and more layers of an increasingly expensive bureaucracy to it?

And perhaps if the federal government does a whole lot less, and the states are doing a whole lot more of governing, we won't be so likely to just ignore the state mess and look to the federal government to somehow be better.  We just might start putting pressure on the local folks to clean up their acts and become honorable public servants again.

And we might again look to the free market to distribute the wealth as the Founders intended.  Is it so hard to understand that the more the government has meddled in that, the more unequal the wealth distribution has become?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> There you go. Cherry picking again.
> 
> Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.



Dude, when have you EVER hesitated in insulting me? I mean, i don't care, I have a thick skin - but the victim shit is laughable.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > There you go. Cherry picking again.
> ...



For FUCKS Sake....do you people EVER read the context of a post?

I didn't attack you or him for insulting me. I was RESPONDING to him crying like a fucking baby about my insult.  The logic shouldn't be hard to grasp: insults were hurled on BOTH sides. I'm not complaining...so why the fuck is HE complaining??

I'm not playing the victim...I'm simply responding. Holy fuck. Read the post I'm responding to before you go off half-cocked.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> In the final review, the question is:  how much are we willing to turn over of our labor, wealth, options, and opportunities to government to do things for us when it is obvious that government is primarily interested in feathering its own nest?
> 
> If you believe you can spend your money more wisely and to your better benefit than the government will do it for you, then you are a fiscal conservative promoting  small, efficient, effective government that does nothing that cannot be done better by the private sector.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with most of this post. It is definitely easier to hold state governments accountable...and it's true that all levels of government have become power grabs. That being said, there's a knee-jerk reaction against everything federal going on...whether or not something is constitutional or working right.  We've got to cut the federal government...but not at the expense of consumer and industry protections.

I'd say, throughout the history of our federal government, the government has made wealth distribution more equal...if only through MAJOR, LANDMARK reforms like civil rights legislation, worker protections, child labor laws, female enfranchisement...etc.  

The people who really get me are the ones who think that ALL (or nearly all) federal controls on companies need to be abolished...and who can never be told that companies will do unscrupulous things if left un-regulated. They just say "you hate Capitalism!! you hate big business!!" No I don't. I just know that companies are run by people...and people, if unchallenged, will do anything to get ahead.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> For FUCKS Sake....do you people EVER read the context of a post?



For fucks sake, can you EVER back up what you post?



> I didn't attack you or him for insulting me.



Your statement was; 


> Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind?



You can and do respond in kind - with no hesitation at all.

I don't deny that I insult you, but you give as much as you get.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > In the final review, the question is:  how much are we willing to turn over of our labor, wealth, options, and opportunities to government to do things for us when it is obvious that government is primarily interested in feathering its own nest?
> ...



In my opinion, ALL involvement of the Federal government re wealth redistribution has produced only more inequality--inequality that is artificially created and much more permanently entrenched than would otherwise be the case.  And it has skewed the natural market forces through policy and regulation, inappropriate for the federal government, that encourages 'misconduct' by some big business.  There is nothing quite like 'free money' from the government to inspire folks to bend and stretch the rules or ethics considerably in order to get it.  There is nothing quite like having the ability to dispense 'free money' to corrupt the most pure poltiician.

Nobody is saying that there is no role for the Federal government to provide regulation that protects unalienable rights or safety precautions in areas where the states cannot do that.   There is NO legitimate role for the Federal government to tell any of us what sort of society we must have or how we must live our lives, however.

Let the Federal government do that which must be done and cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically at more local levels or in the private sector.  Otherwise the Federal government should stay out of it.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Let's recap...
> 
> 1. You said that government was inefficient because it is rife with "politics and favoritism".
> 2. I said that private businesses have those too



You are absolutely right on that.  There are two major differences though:

1)  The customer of a private corporation has the option to leave and go to their competitor if they are not served.  The victim of government doesn't pay they go to jail.

2)  The private company if it doesn't fix the problem goes under.  Government raises taxes and screams they need more money even when they are running a $1.4 trillion deficit.

People are inefficient.  The only way to hold them accountable is choice.  Customers of private companies have it, victims of government don't.  Inefficient management goes away, inefficient politicians don't.  That is the difference.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

kaz said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Let's recap...
> ...



Wrong. I've already covered this point above. Scroll back.  Customers rarely have any effect on the day-to-day operations of a company. Sure, together a group of customers can have a financial impact (lowering/increasing profits, changes in product line based on demand/lack of demand, changing patterns of distribution/communication)...but ultimately its voting people in and out of governmental office that really makes an impact...and government is more accountable.

I don't disagree that Congress is overspending. So what do you do? You find a new candidate to replace the spending candidates. If you're not finding accountability in government, then one of the reasons is probably because you're not getting involved enough.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Customers however have EVERYTHING to do with the choices a company makes.  When too many customers prefer somebody else's products or services or can't afford yours, you either adjust your products, prices, and policies to bring the customers back or you go out of business.  But. . . .

If the government provides sufficient subsides, grants, and other perks so that you don't need the customers so much, the customers are screwed.  As is the taxpayer.

A commerce and industry regulated to protect unalienable rights and then left alone to operate on free market principles will be far superior in quality, quanity, and affordability than will one micromanaged by the government.  It will also produce far more sustainable gainful employment and prosperity than will anything done by the government.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Wrong. I've already covered this point above. Scroll back.  Customers rarely have any effect on the day-to-day operations of a company. Sure, together a group of customers can have a financial impact (lowering/increasing profits, changes in product line based on demand/lack of demand, changing patterns of distribution/communication)...but ultimately its voting people in and out of governmental office that really makes an impact...and government is more accountable.
> 
> I don't disagree that Congress is overspending. So what do you do? You find a new candidate to replace the spending candidates. If you're not finding accountability in government, then one of the reasons is probably because you're not getting involved enough.


You completely missed the point.  Whether or not you change a company, you have the choice to walk across the street to their competitor.  Congress has no competitor, it makes the rules we're all stuck with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Customers rarely have any effect on the day-to-day operations of a company

If a private school is doing a poor job, I can pull my kids out and stop sending them my money.

If the Chicago Public Schools do a bad job, I don't have the choice of no longer sending in my property tax payment.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Both of you have set up a false dichotomy.

No, you can't stop paying your taxes...but you DO get to vote out the bums who set the policies that fuck it up.

In your private school example, unless you're the ONLY fucking student, a few students isn't going to change much. And you both are relying on the power of the purse too much in your arguments.

You don't get to walk into the kitchen of a restaurant and tell some cook he's got to cut your cucumber long-ways.  You don't get to go into a gas station and tell the attendant to start putting the cigarettes out by the gum.  You don't get to walk in to the Big Lots warehouse and tell the warehouse manager you want all the pallet jacks to be electric from now on. 

Those are just a few random examples of what customers DONT get to do. Private customers dont have nearly the control that y'all are making them out to have.

Are you both so oblivious to the fact that the VOTE is your control mechanism? Maybe that's what's wrong with this country.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Both of you have set up a false dichotomy.
> 
> No, you can't stop paying your taxes...but you DO get to vote out the bums who set the policies that fuck it up.
> 
> In your private school example, unless you're the ONLY fucking student, a few students isn't going to change much. And you both are relying on the power of the purse too much in your arguments.


But you can walk across the street to another private school



Vanquish said:


> You don't get to walk into the kitchen of a restaurant and tell some cook he's got to cut your cucumber long-ways.


But you can walk across the street to another restaurant



Vanquish said:


> You don't get to go into a gas station and tell the attendant to start putting the cigarettes out by the gum


But you do get to walk across the street to another gas station.



Vanquish said:


> You don't get to walk in to the Big Lots warehouse and tell the warehouse manager you want all the pallet jacks to be electric from now on.


But you do get to walk across the street to another warehouse



Vanquish said:


> Those are just a few random examples of what customers DONT get to do


But they do get to walk across the street to their competitors



Vanquish said:


> Private customers dont have nearly the control that y'all are making them out to have.


What we both said was we have the ability to walk across the street to their competitors.  You admitted we don't have that choice with politicians, we have to wait until their term is up then convince the majority of the population to "vote them out."



Vanquish said:


> Are you both so oblivious to the fact that the VOTE is your control mechanism? Maybe that's what's wrong with this country.



Your way, I wait until their term is up, I get one vote which is added to everyone else's vote and I only get my way if I win.

My way, I walk across the street to a competitor of my choosing and time I want.

Yeah, it's the same.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



I can stop spending at the private company immediately.

I could go my entire life, and beyond, and still not get a decent school system here in Chicago.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

So you keep repeating the same simplistic bullshit over and over and over and over, Kaz.  Yes, I get it. The power of the purse. Repeating the same drivel continuously don't mean you win. It just means you're thick-headed.  Besides, I've already addressed that earlier.

Wait. Maybe that's it. You just don't READ what people post. You post your vomit based on what you expect someone to say. I mean hey, why actually ADVANCE the conversation. All that pesky reading is involved.

Yeah, you do have to wait a year, or two, or even four to vote. But those representatives are accountable 100% of the time they're in office.  Once you vote them in, they're your bitch.  Or you could treat them with respect until they do something you disapprove of, then work with organizations and other lawmakers to bring pressure, or propose changes. See, the vote is the control mechanism, but not the end of the power. 

And with private business, they don't have to talk to you if they don't want to. You might not be a large enough customer to matter. Or they don't open their shop to even let you in.  Your comparison is so flawed that it's ridiculous.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If it's that important to you, then you should join an organization that's working to fix it. And a political party that can vote in the city, county, and state policies that need to change.

Spending only does so much. One customer or even 5 (depending on the industry) might make an immediate change and NOTHING happens.  Sorry to tell you, the power of the purse isn't as powerful as the power of the VOTE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Voting only does so much. 100,000 voters or even 5,000,000 (depending on the election) might make an immediate change and NOTHING happens.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

The same with "walking across the street." Maybe there's a change. Maybe there's not. You're not really showing that private business is more accountable.

Government = supposed to be accountable to the people no matter what.
Business = supposed to control itself, listens to people to the extent that must to stay afloat.

Now I'm sure you'll jump on the words "supposed to", but that's at least the starting blocks of the way the two work. One is NATURALLY designed, by your Founding Fathers, to be more beholden to the citizenry. Business can do whatever it wants, as long as it has enough money to survive.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 16, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I'm not for wealth redistribution but I am for how the shouldn't get rich from taking money from me or other American citizens. 

The wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes, and if we close the loops holes that allow them to pay  less than maybe they would.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> And with private business, they don't have to talk to you if they don't want to. You might not be a large enough customer to matter. Or they don't open their shop to even let you in.  Your comparison is so flawed that it's ridiculous.


No, with private business they don't have to talk to you if they don't want to.  The thing with free markets is they are free both ways.  What you are free to do is...walk across the street to their competitor.

The only lack of freedom here is your choice when it's up to the politician.  They don't have to talk to you and you don't have the choice to go anywhere.  You seriously consider yourself "center?" Seriously?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2011)

There has been absolute immorality of wealth redistribution from the middle and working classes to the wealthy during the last 30 years.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Government = supposed to be accountable to the people no matter what



And how's that working out for you?  $1.4 trillion deficits, unemployment almost 10%, almost no recovery from the last recession and we're heading into the next one, trillions in debt to China, housing prices in a five year slump.  You think they are "supposed" to be accountable to you and continue to vote for them when they are clearly not.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Now I'm sure you'll jump on the words "supposed to"



Agreed, and rightly so.  Clearly they are not.


----------



## dblack (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> I'm not for wealth redistribution but I am for how the shouldn't get rich from taking money from me or other American citizens.
> 
> The wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes, and if we close the loops holes that allow them to pay  less than maybe they would.




That's the painful irony of it all, really. The usual line is that democracy will go under when the poor realize they can vote themselves a free lunch. But the way  it's played out is a bit different. The poor may be able to vote, but the rich control the political process, and as long as we allow government to control who wins and loses in matters economic, the rich will prevail.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



Can you define what "fair share" means?  Is it a percentage? Is it a dollar amount?

Mike


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 16, 2011)

kaz said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Government = supposed to be accountable to the people no matter what
> ...



Part of that is due to the 17th amendment.  When we removed accountability to the states we kind of screwed up.

Mike


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


Agreed, that was one of the worst moves in our history.  But I still don't want to put my hands in the States to protect me from the Feds when it comes to my right to chose who I do business with and walk across the street when I chose not to.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 16, 2011)

kaz said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Government = supposed to be accountable to the people no matter what
> ...



And there's your problem. Like a welfare bum, you expect someone to do the hard work FOR YOU.

Sure they're accountable. You just don't like what they account up to because WE ALL voted them in.  

Show me where Americans have had the vote taken away, and I'll agree that they're not accountable. Did we all suddenly wake up in Bizarro world where we don't get to vote??? Of course not.  They're accountable. The problem is that the citizenry has a short attention span and is too busy playing Xbox and watching The Real Housewives of Des Moine to give a damn.  If they did, the crooks would be drummed out of office.

Fail by you.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 16, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



I'm not a tax expert. However they figure up the average joe's tax should be the done the same way, except without the loopholes.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



I wish I could agree with you, but most of those favoring government wealth redistribution think it's fine that almost 50% of American wage earners pay little or no federal income taxes, the next 20 or 30% pay about the right amount, and everybody else should be paying a whole bunch more.  "Fair" doesn't enter into it.


----------



## kaz (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> And there's your problem. Like a welfare bum, you expect someone to do the hard work FOR YOU



I'm telling you that if you don't like a company you are dealing with you need to get off your can and walk across the street.

You're telling me if I don't like what the government is doing I need to convince the majority of Americans and vote them out of office.

And this equates to that "I" am "like a welfare bum" who wants someone to do my work for me?  Oh, and you're a centrist.  Right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> The same with "walking across the street." Maybe there's a change. Maybe there's not. You're not really showing that private business is more accountable.
> 
> Government = supposed to be accountable to the people no matter what.
> Business = supposed to control itself, listens to people to the extent that must to stay afloat.
> ...



The same with "walking across the street." Maybe there's a change. Maybe there's not.

There is an immediate change. My money no longer supports the poor performer.
I get 100% of the vote on my decision. In government, I need to get at least 50% support for my position and there is still no guarantee I will see improvement.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Spending only does so much. One customer or even 5 (depending on the industry) might make an immediate change and NOTHING happens.  *Sorry to tell you, the power of the purse isn't as powerful as the power of the VOTE.*



With all due respect, that is just ignorant.

Consumer influence is actually effective. Elections are for the most part a charade to appease the masses. Note that Dear Leader did NOT close Gitmo, did NOT withdraw from Iraq, has NOT engaged the public prior to promoting laws. Those complaints against Bush are equally valid against Obama, despite the belief of millions that he would bring about "hope and change."

Look at what happened when Campbells reduced salt?

{
Campbell Soup Company, which has become synonymous with sodium reduction and even showcased its healthier ways in a commercial, announced a new sales strategy this week: add more salt back into its soups.

Incoming CEO Denise Morrison told an investors meeting at company headquarters in New Jersey this week that Campbells will boost the sodium content of its products in hopes of combatting sluggish sales. }

Campbell&rsquo;s adding salt back to its soups - The Globe and Mail

The power of the purse made the company heed the will of the people,

Coke found out when they changed to "New Coke."


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Can you define what "fair share" means?  Is it a percentage? Is it a dollar amount?
> 
> Mike



Everyone paying the same percentage, no deductions, allowances or other means of not paying, seems fair to me.

10% off the top - end of story...


----------



## yidnar (Aug 16, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


agreed lets lower spending and cut taxes!!


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



Well my question is, is there a fair share.  I mean is there a percentage that you think is fair to tax someone? I'm not asking to be a dick, I'm asking because I always hear about people (left/right/middle/white/black/yellow/brown/red/smart/stupid-- literally everyone) talking about "*their* fair share" and I'm never quite sure what that means. I would think it would be a fairly simple answer.  What do you think is a fair share for you to pay?  I would think that whatever you think is fair for you to pay is same percentage that is fair for someone else to pay.

I just like to ask because "their" is easy to follow with "fair share".  You ask someone what is '*your* fair share' and suddenly they stammer and stutter like somehow it is different.  

Mike


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 16, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> I'm not for wealth redistribution but I am for how the shouldn't get rich from taking money from me or other American citizens.
> 
> The wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes, and if we close the loops holes that allow them to pay  less than maybe they would.
> 
> ...



It means "soak the rich" and "raise taxes on everyone," and that's all it has ever meant.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 16, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



The reason they stammer is because that's a hard question to truly answer. I don't know how to answer it, but I do know that I don't use loopholes in order to pay less than my share, whatever the IRS has determined that share to be. It is these loopholes of the rich that is not right, and should be closed.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 16, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



I agree with you and disagree with you (well tbh its not really agree/disagree its just wrong.)  

I agree with the second point you make.  That is why I'm such a big states rights kinda guy.

To the first point, that's not entirely true.  Now look, I'm all for stopping subsidizes across the board if that's what we're going to do. I wish we would tax income, corporate or otherwise at one level.  Once you have your money, its yours -- no more loopholes.  Part of the reason is evidenced in what you say in your first point.  The "subsidizes to oil companies" is not really an "oil company subsidy".  They are "subsidizes" that are given to all kinds of companies for all kinds of reasons.  Mostly it allows companies to write off risks that are inherent in their business.  Now I'm fine with ending them all but part of the problem is that we (the general public) get into this rhetorical battle because of what politicians throw out there.  

If you think the oil subsidizes are bad, consider this.  What is even more egregious is the subsidizes that we give to the competitors of the oil companies.  The oil companies literally fund the research and development of the companies that the government hopes one day replaces them.  We tax the oil company (who pays taxes just like they would if they were any other company and gets the same tax breaks (its not a subsidy if the company is paying taxes and you let them keep some of their money) as other companies that operate in the same capacity.  Then the federal government takes that money and literally gives it to ethanol companies, bio-diesel companies to start up/do research (the bio-diesel/ethanol/alternative energy companies don't pay money if they aren't making profits so it is literally a subsidy) in the hopes that one day they replace the oil company.  Talk about digging your own grave?

Mike


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> And there's your problem. Like a welfare bum, you expect someone to do the hard work FOR YOU.
> 
> Sure they're accountable. You just don't like what they account up to because WE ALL voted them in.
> 
> ...



In other words, they aren't accountable.  You're whining about the reason doesn't change the outcome.  You're also ignoring the fact that the federal government has $4 trillion each year that it extracts from our hides at gun point to use to buy votes and insure reelection for incumbents.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> I'm not a tax expert. However they figure up the average joe's tax should be the done the same way, except without the loopholes.



Which loopholes do you want to eliminate? Be specific.


----------



## dblack (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which loopholes do you want to eliminate? Be specific.



Answering for myself, all of them. Any deduction that isn't directly related to calculating net income should be eliminated.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



Ultimately though.  There is a fair share.  I don't think it is what is the "fair share" for you to pay, more it is what is the fair share for the government to take from you. 

Think about it like this.  When you work (however you do it, trading stocks, investing, working at McD's, as a CEO, an engineer, digging ditches or whatever) you are devoting a certain percentage of your day away from your family (working at home not withstanding). The total amount that you pay in taxes (after you get your refund/entitlements -- not saying you do, this is the royal generic you now)  divided by the total amount of money that you make (say 60,000 for easy math) * 100 is the percentage of your work that it is acceptable to tax.  So, if you pay 10,000 in taxes that means that for every hour you work the government gets 10 minutes.  If its 20k/taxes then the government gets 20 mins.  If it is 5000 the government gets 5 minutes.  How many hours a day is it fair to ask a person to labor on behalf of the group?  Should that question be answered differently for a person who makes more?  I mean if a guy makes a million dollars a year, should you be able to tell him that he must labor for 20 minutes an hour on behalf of everyone else while most people labor for 10 minutes?  

I know its hypothetical and its really more to inspire thought than get a direct answer.  I just think that when people talk in terms of money they forget that nobody gets money for free.  The money they acquire is (in most cases) the value of the amount and type of work they can accomplish in an hour multiplied by the number of hours they work.  (It goes backwards too for salaried employees).  We hear about "tons of money".  My dad for example, is a wealthy man.  He did very well for himself (he's not one of the ultra-billionares) but he put in a lot of hours.  He didn't work 40 hours a week, he worked closer to 70-80 hrs/week.  We lived in a trailer when I was a kid while he finished school and eventually took an entry level engineering job, paying off loans and things like that. He spend a lot of time building the value of his labor and while its true that he did benefit from the infrastructure around him, he didn't get grants or anything, he worked his tail off.  Is it fair to rob him of the extra compensation he made after he got his MBA just because he gets more money?  I mean what is the benefit of me improving the value of my labor by 10-20% if you stand there and tell me that half of it (or 1/4 or 1/3 or whatever) belongs to society.  If you tax everyone at an equal rate then society is already realizing the added value of my wage by getting that extra tax revenue. 

Its just food for thought, mixed in with the way I see the world.  (I'm not rich yet by the way.)  


Mike


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



So, let me see if I understand what you are saying, if you had children under the age of 18 you would not take the Child Tax Credit that you would be entitled to?  If you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage, you don't itemize your deductions and take advantage of the mortgage interest credit?

Both of those are "loopholes".  Are you saying you don't take advantage of such "loopholes"?

Immie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

dblack said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which loopholes do you want to eliminate? Be specific.
> ...



Which ones aren't directly related to calculating net income?


----------



## dblack (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which ones aren't directly related to calculating net income?



Those that don't represent actual expenses incurred in generating said income. I gather you're trying to make a point, but rather than playing guessing games, it might be simpler if you said what it is.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 16, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

dblack said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which ones aren't directly related to calculating net income?
> ...



My point is when people use the word "loophole" they often don't know what the hell they're talking about.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 16, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



Better yet, this one:

Tax loopholes seen costing billions annually | Reuters


----------



## dblack (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> My point is when people use the word "loophole" they often don't know what the hell they're talking about.



Fair enough. I've noticed that as well. 

Income tax is problematic at best, but as long as we are going to use it as a means of funding government, we need to get it under control. The vagueries involved in accurately calculating someone's income have been abused and twisted into a broad ranging political tool that radically expands the power of the government over society. Congress uses the tax code as defacto legislation to mandate to us in ways that would be blatantly unconstitutional if they were approached in a more straightforward fashion.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



However, those are loopholes and you should take advantage of it.

Sidenote:

Your link makes this statement about Buffet and his secretary:



> As an example, he noted that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, while his secretary, who made $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Apart from the seeming unfairness of this, he suggested that this tax policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.



I have to say this and I have said it before, if Buffet was not lying about this he should fire his secretary because anyone who paid 30% on $60,000 of income is a complete idiot.

The marginal tax rate for a single person without deductions at all was 25%.
The marginal tax rate for married filing jointly was 15%.  If she was married and her husband had income then that is a significant fact that Warren Buffet left out.

2006 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2006

Why would she have paid more than the marginal rate she was required to pay?  Either she didn't and he lied or she is just plain stupid.

Immie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.
> 
> Tax Loopholes for the Rich



According to Wikipedia, the federal budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. This probably doesn't include the more than a trillion in various bailouts, so lets round it off at 4 trillion dollars. 

Why would you add bailouts? That would be double counting.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what I mean at all. Here is a link to an article of what I am talking about.
> ...



Sorry about that. Let me try again.

Tax Loopholes for the Rich


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



Tax loopholes do cost billions.  

Know why they are there?  Know why they never go away?  Because politicians wield power.  Congress wields power.  Lobbyists come to Congress asking for favors and donating large sums for receiving those favors.

We're not going to change that unless we fundamentally change the way our government works.  There will never be a flat tax because instituting a flat tax will remove that power that Congress now wields... the power to sell tax "loopholes".  The Fair Tax will never be adopted because if it were, Congress would lose the ability to sell tax "loopholes".

Loopholes are an advantage of being rich and we poor suckers are just going to have to live with it.

Immie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



He lied. I've worked it out before around here.
She paid something like 16%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Stashman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



My bad. It worked the 3rd or 4th time I tried it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



Even at 16% she was not very smart when it comes to tax planning.

Immie


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 16, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...


Again, you make a great case for a strong local government tied together with a union dedicated to allowing several smaller sovereign states to exist. The one of the many problems with a lot of the debates that happen at a national level is removing the ability of people to vote with their feet.

You're right that people should vote but in reality the system of representation is pretty broken.  You have congressmen (specifically in the HoR) that represent an average of 820,000 people. We need an increase of representation but more than just that we need to regain the ability to vote with our feet.  Instead of a nationwide policy, we should have state policies.  If you don't like the policies in your state, find one you like them in.  Vote with your feet and have the states competing for your service.  We need competition restored in government because competition always works to the customers advantage.  Let the states (or the inhabitants of the states) decide on the majority of the policies.  When that happens, if its working people will flock there (and encourage other states to follow their policies) on the other hand, if its not working people will leave the states.  That will actually encourage more effective government because the good policies will spread while the bad policies will be discouraged.

Mike


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Check it out.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/172042-tax-the-rich-fix-jobs-and-deficits-32.html#post3810015


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thanks, but that is if she did absolutely no tax planning at all and if that is the case she is an idiot.  Also working for Buffet and he didn't provide any kind of retirement plan so that she could shelter some of that money?  I'm just a little skeptical.

Immie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Right, the absolute maximum she'd pay was 15.7%. 

Buffet lied big time.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 17, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level.  Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)

I'm not against a strong local government. I respect the fact that local values are different from city to city, county to county and state to state. I want my laws to reflect the values of the community I live in. Even so, the power of the vote is alive and well...its just that people don't organize enough, nor do they follow through!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 17, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course those who aren't drawing wages but are living off their investments will be paying lower taxes on capital gains that will many of those paying wages.  But the only way to remedy that situation is to raise taxes on capital gains which has and will always start freezing up that money, putting it into cold storage, sending it overseas, or other measures that takes it out of the economy.  That's part of the problem now.  Without having assurance that the government won't raise taxes, trillions are currently sidelined both here and overseas until there is some assurance of what the risk will be if all that capital is put back into the economy.

You simply cannot help the poor by going after the resources of the rich.  And even the rich aren't fools who will take unnecessary or irrational risks with their resources.  And Warren Buffet has to know that.  Or maybe he's getting senile in his old age and isn't thinking rationally any more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Buffet's salary from Berkshire was $100,000.
He paid a higher rate on his income than his $60,000 secretary.
He paid more payroll tax (at the same rate) as his secretary.
He paid more capital gains tax, while being charged the same rate, than his secretary paid on her capital gains, if any.

I don't see a problem here.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 17, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity -- A. Rodgers.

Mike


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 17, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Stashman said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Or here's an idea. Perhaps it is fair that those that shoulder the greater portion of the tax burden should have the greater say in how the tax code works.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but if it is the direction I think it is, I think you are confused about the tone of my post.  Unless, of course, you are actually defending the progressive tax code that we now have that has actually failed and defending Congress' right to remain corrupt by selling its power to the highest bidder.

Immie


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 17, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I think he's actually saying that if we're going to allow some people to pay more of the burden then their vote should count more.  

Mike


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 17, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I was not sure if he was trying to argue with me or what.

The idea of a rich person's vote counting more is definitely not American.

However, in principle, I do understand the point being made.

Here is an analogy.  It is fair that if I am going to the Super Bowl this year and I pay the money to sit halfway up in the lower deck at the 50 yard line that I get those seats rather than have to sit last row, third deck in the end zone while some guy that pays for obstructed view tickets sits at the 50 yard line.

Immie


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level.  Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)



You're right that the federal government caters to trial lawyers. They also listen to investment bankers. That is a LONG way from heeding the message of the people. 

If the federal government gave a damn what the American people thought, the border would be secured and illegals would be deported.


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level.  Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)
> 
> I'm not against a strong local government. I respect the fact that local values are different from city to city, county to county and state to state. I want my laws to reflect the values of the community I live in. Even so, the power of the vote is alive and well...its just that people don't organize enough, nor do they follow through!



Hmm... see, it's this very aspect of democracy that doesn't sit right with me. What you describe isn't the power of the vote so much as the power of organized special interests. I don't think people should take it in the shorts just because they fail to 'organize'. Our bulwark against this kind of government is supposed to be constitutional limitations on government power, but with such limits all but obliterated, corporatism has free reign.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 17, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No I'm not defending the progressive tax code. What I'm saying is if we are going to continue with such a system it is perfectly fair that those who shoulder the most burden have the ability to campaign to have the tax code changed to benefit them as much as possible.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Okay, gotcha, and knowing what I know about you from other posts, that was kind of what I thought, but for the record and just to be clear.  I am not defending the progressive tax code.  

I think it is an abject failure.  In principle maybe it should work, but in fact, it is not working.

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stashman said:
> ...



No, I would not want to compromise the concept of one citizen, one vote.  But I do think the system should ensure that everybody has a stake in the consequences of their vote.

When you have almost 50% of U.S. taxpayers paying little or no federal income taxes, those people don't care how much tax is put on everybody else.  They do have incentive to vote for people who will keep them off the tax rolls and are far more likely to vote for their own self interest than they are likely to consider any other cause and effect of what their elected leaders do.

Initiate a 100% fair, equitable, across the board flat tax rate so that everybody pays the same rate on whatever income they have--a modest blanket exemption could be allowed so the kid with a paper route wouldn't need to fill out a federal tax form--but otherwise everybody pays 10% or 12% or 15% or whatever rate is necessary to fund the NECESSARY functions of the federal government.  Now there is no incentive to vote for people who will keep 50% of the people tax free, but there is incentive to vote for people who will be careful and competentl stewards of the people's money because those who do that well will merit the people's vote.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 17, 2011)

dblack said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > I just came back from a Trial Lawyers luncheon where the state president explained just how you DO get national government and congresspeople to take action. She described in detail how they record all the positions of constituents that come in and that local pressure DOES work on a national level.  Case in point, the local TL chapter got a provision added to a national bill that will be effectively allowing a federal insurance commission (of sorts) to create federal law with NO congressional oversight or approval! (They wanted to make sure that the commission couldn't outlaw entire categories of insurance claims just because they wanted to do so)
> ...



There you go. You hear Trial Lawyers and you get all these pre-conceived notions in your head.  The meeting that I just attended was a LOCAL meeting...where LOCAL lawyers of small numbers...not in this mythic machine that you want to rail against based on preconceived notions...made a national difference.  Several small time guys who worked hard for years, holding congressmen accountable, made a difference.  Exactly the point of what we're talking about.

They didn't use millions of dollars from some slick organization. We just had chicken casserole on cafeteria trays at a damn farmer's market. I could have been talking about the freakin' girl scouts or the Pollyanna Stocking Society for all that it matters. Don't get hung up on insignificant details.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 17, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well that would be the pie in the sky ideal scenario. I really don't know why more people dont get behind it. Especially the left considering all the loopholes it would get rid of. I think at the end of the day they just don't want to admit that they really aren't interested in a truly fair tax code.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



This sweeping generalization brought to you by the Shill Society!


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> get all these pre-conceived notions in your head.  The meeting that I just attended was a LOCAL meeting...where LOCAL lawyers of small numbers...not in this mythic machine that you want to rail against based on preconceived notions...made a national difference.  Several small time guys who worked hard for years, holding congressmen accountable, made a difference.  Exactly the point of what we're talking about.
> 
> They didn't use millions of dollars from some slick organization. We just had chicken casserole on cafeteria trays at a damn farmer's market. I could have been talking about the freakin' girl scouts or the Pollyanna Stocking Society for all that it matters. Don't get hung up on insignificant details.



Your description was clear enough, and I understood just what you were talking about. But I don't think that's a good way for government to work. I don't want a government that responds to the demands of organized special interest groups, regardless of whether they are rich multinational corporations, or dedicated local activists. I want a government limited to actions the protect the general welfare of all of us - as equally as possible.

Again, when I say corporatist, I'm not talking about government dominated by large businesses - I'm talking about government that operates predominately by divving up power and influence among organized special interests. Those can be large corporations - but they can also be small groups of local activists. 

in such an environment, the rights of individuals and un-organized minorities (and for that matter un-organizied _majorities_), fall by the wayside. Government becomes a competition between organized groups vying for power. That works well for government power brokers and organized lobbyists, but it sucks for the rest of us.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 17, 2011)

I agree with your sentiment, but not your result.

I agree that for far too long the government has been influenced, bribed, and coerced by unscrupulous political interest groups. I agree that it's thrown the balance of power away from the individual and probably screwed us all in the long run.

The problem is that we all have the freedom to associate. It's one of the overlooked freedoms to be sure, but it's a really important one. If people can't get together and work for a political goal, what else CAN they organize to achieve? What's more important than people giving their free time to influence government about a cause they care about? Respectfully, who are we to tell people they can't speak out _together_?

Like any tool...guns...money...what have you...political interest groups can either work for good or evil. That's why it takes a focused, willing, interested population to fight the good fight.

NINJA EDIT:  The ruling by the SCOTUS that corporations can use untold sums of cash as political speech didn't help matters.


----------



## dblack (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I agree with your sentiment, but not your result.
> 
> I agree that for far too long the government has been influenced, bribed, and coerced by unscrupulous political interest groups. I agree that it's thrown the balance of power away from the individual and probably screwed us all in the long run.
> 
> ...



The Supreme Court is precisely the weak link in all of this. Catzmeow posted a link a few days ago to an excellent article on the distinction between a democracy and a republic: 

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

We shouldn't have to organize and 'fight back' in order to protect ourselves for overreaching government (regardless of who is driving it). The limitations on government built into the constitution are supposed to be our bulwark against special interests using government to exert power over the rest of us (whether they represent the majority or not).

But over the years, the Supreme Court has nullified some of the most important protections encoded in the Constitution. I have at least some sliver of hope after the most recent rejection of the unlimited power of the commerce clause. Obama may have done us all a favor by pushing the envelope with the individual mandate. If it results in a solid rebuke of using the commerce clause as _the_ legislative multi-tool, the entire debacle will have been worth it. I heck, I may even vote for him in a gesture of thanks (assuming hell doesn't freeze over and Ron Paul is nominated by the Republicans).


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 17, 2011)

I agree that the CC and the DCC are way to broad and overreaching. It's insane what they chalk up to "interstate commerce" these days.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 17, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



That is, as you know, a fucking lie.

The middle class has gained wealth at a lower rate than the rich.

The middle class has far greater purchasing power than they did in 1980. 4000 sqft McMansion, anyone?

You leftists frame the debate by flat out lying - it makes civil discourse impossible.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 17, 2011)

dblack said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > get all these pre-conceived notions in your head.  The meeting that I just attended was a LOCAL meeting...where LOCAL lawyers of small numbers...not in this mythic machine that you want to rail against based on preconceived notions...made a national difference.  Several small time guys who worked hard for years, holding congressmen accountable, made a difference.  Exactly the point of what we're talking about.
> ...



I think you have hit on the precise point around which this entire debate should be framed.  First, you CANNOT have a middle class without a wealthy class.  Second, the U.S. Middle Class is a wealthy class compared to the middle class in most of the rest of the world.  Third, the wealthy class has not taken anything away from the Middle Class but rather has provided most of the opportunity, choices, and options that the Middle Class enjoys.   The very best means of this fortunate situation to exist and improve is for the federal government protect everybody's rights and otherwise stay mostly out of it.

No federal government charity or special considerations or benefits to anybody, rich or poor.

No federal government charity or special considerations or benefits to special interest groups no matter how noble they purport to be.

We need a clarification drilled into everybody that the general welfare means benefit to EVERYBODY, rich and poor alike.  When it is targeted at one group and another is left out, it is no longer the general welfare.  And whenever special interests can persuade, coerce, bribe, or threaten the federal government into using the people's money for the benefit of any special interest, no matter who they are, the system is then corrupted both in government and in the beneficiaries of the benefit.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 17, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich
> ...



Conservatives lie in threads too, so don't make it seem like just one side.

I'm curious as to what you think the logical extent of your comment about "gaining wealth" is.  200 years from now when the rich have grown their wealth exponentially because of the power of money (both in compounding and in opportunity) and there's nothing but a rich and poor society...will a conservative think that some social engineering should have been done to ensure some balance.

Just simply take your comment to the logical extent.  Or will you simply say, "shucks, if that's what happens in a free market, oh well! them's the breaks!"


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You don't have just rich and poor in a free market society.  You have an ever transitioning society where the poorest of the poor can hope to aspire to be the richest of the rich and everything in between with people moving up and down on the scale depending on their ability, initiative, work ethic, education, vision, staying power, opportunity, and sometimes just plain luck.  Free market societies are classless as nobody has to be stuck where they are.

But history has shown again and again and again that the more government assumes power to allocate the winners and losers in the society, the more the gap between rich and poor will grow with the poor becoming the large but powerless majority.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Conservatives lie in threads too, so don't make it seem like just one side.



Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't - but this is one of those foundational lies. IF it is accepted, then the basis of all else is altered.

That it IS a lie, and an insidious one, makes it despicable. RW knows it to be a lie, I have listed the costs of products and housing for both time periods and expanded them to the hourly wages required to obtain them on a dozen occasions.

The fact is that the purchasing power of ALL Americans has significantly increased since 1980. But IF RW and other leftists are honest and acknowledge that their complaint is that the wealth of the rich has grown FASTER than the wealth of the middle class, they reveal themselves as the petty peddlers of envy - which is in fact what they are. 



> I'm curious as to what you think the logical extent of your comment about "gaining wealth" is.



There is only one standard, how many hours of labor one must expend to purchase the goods they need and want.

Less hours of labor are required to buy the same goods today than were required in 1980. Each class of Americans enjoys vastly greater quality and quantity of Goods today than in 1980. 

Facts don't support the envy and outrage needed to motivate a population to cede liberty to rulers promising "fairness" in exchange for subservience, so RW and others of his ilk lie, shamelessly and blatantly.

Such is the left.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 17, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> You don't have just rich and poor in a free market society.



Even if you did, the fact remains that EVERY segment of society enjoys more goods of greater quality today than they did 30 years ago.

All boats have risen.

That some have risen more than others is a rather petty and childish complaint - which is why RW and other leftists flat out lie about it.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 17, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Then why can't you get a liberal to agree with it? I don't like generalizations either, but some are occasionally true. Can you name a democrat that favors the fair tax? One poll said that only about a third of democrats actually favor a tax system where everyone pays the same rate in taxes. You don't have to understand liberals well to see why. They have a lot of things they want to do for people that they know they can't pay for through a fair system.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"truly fair tax code" - those words are highly charged.

You're assuming that the fair tax is fair just because it has the name it does.

liberals want fair taxes. it's all in how you define fair. I know that liberals and conservatives insult each other around here, but there's no need to join in. Liberals and conservatives both want what's fair. Saying otherwise is just a needless insult.


----------



## cootydog (Aug 18, 2011)

Thomas Jefferson on this subject.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. 

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. 

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In a government bottomed on the will of all, the...liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

Im a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



No I'm not assuming that at all. I'm calling it fair because it meets the definition of the term 'fair'. Again, I'm not fan of pointless rhetoric either, but I can not for the life me squeeze the taxes and who liberals want to pay them in any conceivable definition of the term 'fair'. I do not know a definition of 'fair' that says it is fair that a person have more taken from them just because they have more. Yet that is what the left says. Taxes must go up on the wealthy. I simply can't agree with the notion that liberals want a fair tax code, because there simply isn't any evidence in what they do or say they want that indicates such. Fair, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with it. It's about where they're going to get the money for all of the liabilities that government has accumulated over the years.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 18, 2011)

cootydog said:


> Thomas Jefferson on this subject.



Jefferson was a TEA Party radical. The NY Times will be launching another round of libel against him any day now.....


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 18, 2011)

"Fair" is a silly word to apply to the tax code.  What could it possibly mean?  That the laws take enough money from the people who have earned it so there won't be as big a gap between them and the people who create no wealth and might not even work? How is that fair?  Such tax policies are merely legalized theft.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Personally I don't think the radical left cares one whit about the poor.  If they did they would have actually done some good with the trillions they have collected and expended, purportedly on poverty programs, and they would have been really upset by now that those trillions have not corrected the problem.

I think the radical left--perhaps some on the right too but I haven't seen more than a rare anecdotal case there--don't want a truly fair and equitable tax system because it takes away their power to assign winners and losers, mete out punishment or rewards, etc. and thereby increase their control.   And it seems to me that it is that power that defines the Left more than any other characteristic.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.

Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.

Bern80 you keep talking about liberals not wanting to be fair because they don't fall in line with what you, personally, think is fair. Hell you dont even define the word fair, but type paragraphs and paragraphs about liberals.  See the way you prove something doesnt meet a standard is to explain the standard first...then compare the facts...then follow with your conclusion. You havent done any of that except the conclusion.

This board is almost a waste of time in terms of decent debate. sigh.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do.



Dude, even IF that is true, it's utterly irrelevant.

The claim is that the "rich have gotten richer and the middle class have gotten poorer."

This claim is demonstrably false. While you may want to fall back on partisan sniping, the claim remains false.

All segments of American society enjoy greater overall prosperity today than they did in 1980. If you claim that this is because of the digital revolution, you might have an argument. If you claim it isn't so, then you are being deceitful.

Furthermore, the class warfare shit is not intended to foster rational debate, not by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
> 
> Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.
> 
> ...



Then you tell me. What is it about what liberals want our tax code to be that you can objectively define as fair? What I personally think? Why don't you quit the cop outs. Fair is not a subjective term and I'm not making it mean whatever I want it to mean. There are many different standards for what fair could mean; equal percentage of income, equal dollar amount, or maybe even proportional to the benefits of the services you derive from government.  And the FACT is few, if any, liberals are championing any of those.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 18, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
> 
> Furthermore, to say nothing substantial has been done to help the poor in this country just isn't true either. It's a comfortable deception to believe it though.
> 
> ...



Fair.  That's a hard word to define because the liberals and conservatives (and me in this particular case) view fair at different chronological points.  Conservatives (and a lot of libertarians) view fair as a starting point.  Liberals have a tendency to view fair as an ending point.  If a guy works but doesn't make enough to pay his bills, liberals seem to believe that it is fair to take from someone that has a surplus (as defined by somebody... I still haven't figured out who gets to define that) and use it to help the guy pay his bills (or for food or whatever). I don't think the two will ever agree on what fair is to be honest.  Namely because if either caves on the definition of fair their whole platform collapses.

That is just my perspective and every individual actually has a different definition.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 19, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even know where to start when uncensored can't even fully admit that conservatives lie in threads as much as liberals do. That's one of those foundational lies that means we can't have a decent discussion on these boards.
> ...



While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.

While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.

I notice that a lot of conservatives talk about liberals wanting to take take take. I think the majority of liberals are more interested in the processes of government being fair - no discrimination, children getting an equal education, a woman's right to choose (I'm anti-abortion though)...things like that. 



> Dude, even IF that is true, it's utterly irrelevant.


It's irrelevant to one of the topics we're discussing, yes. But forum decorum is ever present. Why would you debate someone who can't even admit the slightest truth (Hint: You can't even admit it when called on it) ?  If we can't start at a basis of truth and understanding each other and treat each other civilly....why even talk?

The rich getting richer wasn't my proposition, but I do find it true. I haven't seen you cite to any authority to prove it's false.  And as for all boats rising...sure that's true. But it doesnt make the delta/change/gap between the rich and poor any less. If one boat is at 2m high...and rising at 1m per minute...whereas a second boat is at 4m high and rising at 20m per minute...it's not hard to tell that despite the 1st boat rising the second boat is rising faster.

As for the class warfare bullshit, I think there's a way to discuss the standard of living for all without resorting to it. But there are those conservatives who will ALWAYS call it class warfare as their stock attack on liberals. It's like the "blame booosh" meme. (conservatives are much better at simplistic memes) No one can ever talk about the economy that came before without some conservative shouting that. (I'm actually hoping Obama loses so conservatives can stop blaming him...like they asked people not to blame booosh)  Many conservatives want to social engineer with anti-drug policies, anti-gay policies, military intervention...but when it comes to liberals wanting to help their own, you turn it all around and lambast them for it.

The fact remains that lots of people get rich in unscrupulous ways or by taking advantage of people with their superior bargaining power. I can't say that the former reason is a majority of rich people/groups. Nor can I say that the latter is unfair. Life isn't fair. People use their advantages in self-interested ways. We all do. That being said, trying to put on this pollyanna picture that rich folks aren't using their advantages against everyone else (even each other) is ridiculous. Of course they do. And saying "class warfare" doesnt or shouldnt exist is either naive or dishonest.  And so we're back to fairness.  

Companies have proven that they can't self-regulate. When left to their own devices, they'll take take take until someone holds their feet to the fire.  We wouldn't have child labor laws or fair pay for women if we just let companies do what they wanted to do. The response that people would boycott those companies hasn't been borne out by history. It took federal legislation - because the little guy didn't have the power - except through government!

If you want to say something is false, cite to a source. I'll do the same. Here's an article that I keep in my bookmarks on this subject:
the u.s. middle class is being wiped out here&#39;s the stats to prove it: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

Please cite to some material yourself and we can progress.


----------



## editec (Aug 19, 2011)

If distribution of wealth gets so lopsided that it becomes an impediment to a healthy economy and society, then a *failure to redistribute wealth is IMMORAL.*

The question, the burning question that we ought to be asking ourselves (only we don't because most of us are so damned braindead from propaganda that it doesn't occur to us) is _*HOW to BEST DO THAT in a way that is both MORAL and effective?*_

Now _authentic capitalism_ seems like a good way to do that, but the end game of authentic capitalism tends to be the root of the problem to begin with.

*This is really a problem in pretty much every economic system devised by man.*

*Money BEGATS more money* and then that money is turned into power which eleminates even the possiblity of having a fair and just economic system.


----------



## Wiseacre (Aug 19, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...





Good link, thanks for posting it.   Can't argue with those stats, but the question is whether redistributing the wealth does anything to fix the problem.   IMHO such policies do nothing to resolve the underlying problems we face, it's like a drop in the bucket that changes nothing but gets pols re-elected.   So you raise taxes on the millionaires and billionaires, what you get does nothing but temporarily help some people at the other end of the income spectrum.   But not all of them and not enough, and the problems do not get addressed.

   The lib/dem answer is to raise taxes more and more, but such actions disincentivize the economy and drive businesses and investments offshore.   Surely not the best solution if you really want to assist the lower income folks.   So I guess the morality of the redistribution of wealth comes down to this:   do you want to help people help themselves or merely throw them another bone?   Somebody else's bone I might add.   How moral is that?


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 19, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Texanmike said:
> ...



We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out.  Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in.  Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary?

If cuts won't be enough...and taxes are required...who are you going to tax? Taxing the poor and middle class would make the economy worse! 

I disagree that taxes are a disincentive to achievement. People arent going to stop trying to gather wealth just because they're taxed. Type A people will never stop working, achieving, and striving. No one is ever going to say, "the government takes too much. Id rather just starve."  I will concede the opposite though - there are some people who are willing to STOP working because they have decided that the lifestyle that government assistance affords is enough for them. But the reality is that most welfare recipients get MEAGER amounts and would rather be off the rolls to work at a better job. (Studies show that part of the problem is that the jobs welfare recipients can get usually have no benefits and dont improve their living conditions..no matter how hard they work)

I DO want people to help themselves. I think you need to, respectfully, educate yourself on what happens with welfare. Many states have pretty strict requirements for what recipients must do...including 30 hours a week (almost a full work week) of job training/career counseling classes....Food Stamps usually amount to a little under $100 per month and only enough to buy 2 weeks worth of goceries but it does help so it is worth it.





> Survey research shows that most welfare recipients endorse the work ethic. Conservative Lawrence Mead replies that recipients endorse it only aspirationally, not as a
> duty. They are willing to work at well-paying, respectable jobs, but scorn the poorly
> paid menial jobs open to them [20].
> 
> ...



http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/workfare.pdf

So the idea that welfare people don't want to work is totally false.

I get that it seems to someone who has no contact with the welfare system that it's just a hand out. It seems common sense to ask for quid-pro-quo, but the people asking for this don't understand why this isn't possible because they don't know enough about the system. Current welfare rules ensure that individuals who work are better off financially than if they do not work. 

Several states and cities have adopted a more reasonable approach under which people who are ready to work are pushed to find jobs right away and those who lack the most basic skills are given education and training in addition to assistance.

Many recipients are mentally disabled, too old for the work force, or are performing socially-valuable services like taking care of children or the elderly. If welfare were gone everywhere, you'd have thousands of children with no one to take care of them, elderly destitute, and crazy people roaming your streets. But the conservative mantra seems to be "fuck em. they're responsible for themselves."  That short-sighted plan doesn't seem to realize what the effect of suddenly having thousands more homeless, destitute people would do to ALL of us. People don't want to realize, even in this world of instant messaging, how connected we all are.

Are we asking farmers who receive subsidies not to plant certain crops to do some kind of work in return? No. We're not.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



You can get anybody to do just about anything that isn't immoral or life threatening if you pay them enough.

Those of us who get ahead take the McJobs and Wal-mart jobs, sometimes two or three at the same time, and do what we have to do to earn a living, develop work ethic, acquire skills and references, and be ready to jump into better pay and work conditions.  You're much more likely to get the better job if you already have one.    I personally have done it many times as we moved around the country.  Sometimes you start at the bottom and work up. There is nothing demeaning about that.

It would not occur to me to apply for welfare because it pays as well or better than a job.

And that is the difference between productive, prosperous Americans and whole large groups that the government has made permanently dependant and virtually unemployable.


----------



## Texanmike (Aug 19, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.
> 
> While I think your starting point/ending point works for some conservatives and liberals, I don't think it works for the majority of them.
> 
> ...



Unless you continue to call me a me a moron (a reference to a different thread..) you'll find that I'm usually pretty agreeable and enjoy debate in the form of a conversation and not a vulgarity contest.  I can, however, turn the switch if I need to.

I consider myself conservative in my own personal life, but I'm a libertarian politically.  When I run for office I doubt I will get the support of the Republican party, namely for my stance on drug use and gay marriage.  

I do maintain that the starting/ending point works for most liberals, I don't think its all encompasing.  When I say starting/ending point i think a large part of the problem is that Liberals, generally, do not like the idea that there are losers.  Personally, I'm fine with someone being a loser.  If someone can't make it in life and winds up starving, I'm ok with that.  Now would i give the guy a loaf of bread?  Sure.  Do I actually want to see anyone die?  No, of course not... that's ridiculous but I have less of a problem with him dying than I do forcing someone else to partake in charity.  

When it comes to children, it is harder to take that stance but I feel that you have to make a choice.  If you are not willing to violate a human beings ability to reproduce (you got 2 kids taken away from you, you're on SSI/welfare/food stamps/section 8... and we won't snip your tubes???) then you must be wiling to allow kids to suffer the consequences of their parents actions.  Again, do I want to see it?  Of course not.  I do a lot of volunteer work and give money to various organizations that help kids and provide for education/living expenses of orphens and wards of the state, but again... my tolerance for seeing another person be forced to give to a charity (the government entitlement programs) is zero.

I do not see government as a good purveyor of fairness.  It is a great idea, and I wish it could work.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions... I think that's what I'm saying.  I just don't think the government is the right avenue to do things.  I mean look at Katrina, people that were dependent on the government for help? How'd that turn out?  Even 911, the only "success" in the whole tragedy was when people did exactly what the government told us not to do in the case of a hijacking.  My faith in the government to do anything to make people dependent on it, and not eventually screw it up royally is zero.  

Mike


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 19, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> It would not occur to me to apply for welfare because it pays as well or better than a job.



And that, right there, is why you are not a democrat.

Gaming the system and dependency aren't even in your thought process. That earns my respect - AND the enmity of the left.


----------



## Wiseacre (Aug 19, 2011)

From Vanquish, I'm just going to address this part instead of reposting the whole enchilada.

"  We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out. Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary?  "


Some conservatives are totally unwilling to raise taxes just as some liberals are totally unwilling to cut spending.   From my end (cons), I can see the point of increasing revenues, but I also see that if you give a democrat more money he/she will spend it rather than pay down the debt/deficits.    And spend it unwisely too, the argument for another stimulus package would be easier to make if Obama and the dems had done a better job of spending the last one in a more effective manner.   I am just not willing to give these guys more money to waste, especially when I see that it's really inconsequential to the overall problem.    Show me a more fiscally responsible gov't first, then get back to me about raising taxes. 

I mean c'mon, when you're running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you want to get 70-80 billion in new revenue from a tax hike on the 200k+ earners, that's nothing.   Obama and the dems are so not serious about spending cuts  -  no serious budget since God knows when, totally unwilling to put entitlement benefits on the table or that God Damn high speed rail that hemorrages money.   It's not like I want to do it all at once, like Bachmann and some TP idiots that didn't want to raise the debt ceiling.   That was really irresponsible IMHO, but I understand the position.

"  If cuts won't be enough...and taxes are required...who are you going to tax? Taxing the poor and middle class would make the economy worse!  "

Agreed, but many say taxing the rich people who provide the lion's share of investment money to start new businesses isn't a good idea either.   I mean, look at the current situation, banks aren't lending money unless you've got a sizeable investment behind you.   That money has to come from rich people, AND higher taxes also discourages foreign investments too.   So - IMHO raising taxes on anybody at this point in time is suicidal for the economy.

"  I disagree that taxes are a disincentive to achievement. People arent going to stop trying to gather wealth just because they're taxed. Type A people will never stop working, achieving, and striving. No one is ever going to say, "the government takes too much. Id rather just starve." I will concede the opposite though - there are some people who are willing to STOP working because they have decided that the lifestyle that government assistance affords is enough for them. But the reality is that most welfare recipients get MEAGER amounts and would rather be off the rolls to work at a better job. (Studies show that part of the problem is that the jobs welfare recipients can get usually have no benefits and dont improve their living conditions..no matter how hard they work)  "

Too much hyperbole here, of course not everyone is going to stop working or investing because of a tax hike, the question is how much of a disincentive would it be?   Why take the risk of doing anything to disincentivize new business?   Now THATs cutting off your nose to spite your face.   IMHO, we need to restructure our tax code and reduce the tax rates to become more competitive world wide.   Hell, we don't need a tax hike to raise revenues, we just need to revitalize our economy.   And a tax hike is a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2011)

Texanmike said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > While I disagree with parts of this, at least you didn't present it in an insulting manner, like others in the thread.
> ...



Your personal convictions re drug law, gay marriage, science, global warming, etc. etc. etc., ANY of the hot button issues, will not hurt you with mainstream Republicans UNLESS you are one who presumes to ram your personal philosophy down everybody else's throat.  True conservatives don't condemn anybody for their thoughts, beliefs, convictions, cultural conditioning but judge people on the level of freedom they are willing to allow in the thoughts, beliefs, convictions, cultural conditioning etc. of everybody else.

(I don't consider those who condemn people purely on their beliefs to be true conservatives or libertarians as I think a true conservative or libertarian is one who affords everybody unalienable rights and not just those with certain ideological propensities.  The others who would deny freedom to those they disagree with aren't conservatives.  Or moderates.  Or even principled liberals.  They are wingnuts.  As often as not also numbnuts.)

I always wonder though why kids of parents who actually support and parent their kids and try to give them some advantages in life are less worthy of our care and concern as those who don't have parents who give a damn about them.  It makes no sense to me to reward bad parenting by giving their kids more stuff and denying any reward of any kind to parents who actually parent.

Seems to me if you want good parenting, you reward good parenting and take the kids away from those who won't do that for their kids.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 19, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> From Vanquish, I'm just going to address this part instead of reposting the whole enchilada.
> 
> "  We're not thinking too differently, truth be told. Welfare statistics do show a larger than ideal repeat rate (25% of women repeat within 1 year, 42% repeat within 2). However raising taxes on the wealthiest members does work as part of a long-term solution. Why? Because of the simple fact that to get the surpluses we need to lower our debt, cutting alone isn't going to be enough. Massive cuts + taxes are the only way to make sure that what we've got coming in = more than we have going out. Anyone who opposes any and all taxes for any reason isn't being realistic. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils...which is what our dire situation has put us in. Are you going to cut off your nose to spite your face...and let America go to shambles...or are you going to suck something up that might be somewhat unfair, but necessary?  "
> 
> ...



That's fair. I think a proposal for 3$ in spending cuts for 1$ in revenue was pretty fair. I'd prefer 5 or 8 to 1 though. Only after those cuts have been implemented first would the revenues begin.

Dems aren't the only ones who spend. While they do, so do cons. And TARP was Bush's attempt at making sure that his legacy wasn't a terrible economic collapse.

Businesses are sitting on lots of cash right now. On a debit/credit analysis, big business is looking good. It's federal government economic uncertainty that's the question according to S&P/Moody's/Bloomberg. That's got to be job one. Shoring up the government - at least in terms of process.

Until the world finds economic equality...businesses will always go where it's cheaper.


----------



## Wiseacre (Aug 19, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > From Vanquish, I'm just going to address this part instead of reposting the whole enchilada.
> ...




Agreed.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2011)

Wiseacre said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Except. . . . .

When Reagan agreed to a tax increase early in his presidency in return for $3 of spending cuts for every new dollar in taxes, we got the taxes but no spending cuts.

When George H.W. Bush broke his 'no new taxes' pledge in his third year in office and agreed to $1 in taxes for $3 in spending cuts, taxes on the rich even, we got the taxes that almost destroyed our domestic boat and private plane building industries.  We got none of the spending cuts.

The current so-called deficit reduction plan recently passed by Congress pushes all tax cuts into future Congresses and accomplishes essentially none now.  Just what do you think the odds are that we will get those future tax cuts.  This 'super congress' that is supposed to come up with all these additional cuts is the biggest smoke and mirrors scam our government has ever insulted our intelligence with. 

We DO NOT want to give Congress any additional money to spend or give them ANY excuse or justification for spending more money.   We need to start now to put the government on a strict reduced diet until it has shrunk to the size it has to be and no more.


----------



## Chris (Aug 19, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Not happening.

Most of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense....three things Americans believe in.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 20, 2011)

editec said:


> If distribution of wealth gets so lopsided that it becomes an impediment to a healthy economy and society, then a *failure to redistribute wealth is IMMORAL.*
> 
> The question, the burning question that we ought to be asking ourselves (only we don't because most of us are so damned braindead from propaganda that it doesn't occur to us) is _*HOW to BEST DO THAT in a way that is both MORAL and effective?*_
> 
> ...



Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2011)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Americans can believe 2+2=5, that doesn't make it so.


----------



## dblack (Aug 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.



Exactly. And the thing is, I'm fairly certain that's going on. If those upset about wealth disparity set their focus on stopping all the illicit gains, all the corruption, all the 'corporate welfare' and tax loopholes - they'd find a fair share of eager allies among libertarians and conservatives. Seems like a missed opportunity.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2011)

dblack said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.
> ...



I agree with doing those things, but I don't think doing so equals wealth redistrubution and I don't believe it to be stealing on the part of corporations. I guess, if anything, it's politicians stealing from people for the benefit of corporations and ultimately themselves.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Aug 24, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


The liberal political establishment uses class warfare as a means to pit the people against each other while they themselves( politicians) "take" from everyone.
It's a straw man process. Create an enemy, use falsehoods and half truths and the result is people start believing the rubbish. Meanwhile those doing the spreading walk off with pockets lined with the producers cash.
Pretty good job, if you can get one.


----------



## American_Jihad (Nov 29, 2012)

*Doha-ing It Again*​

By Jeffrey Folks
11/29/12


The latest United Nations conference on climate change opened Monday in Doha, the capital of Qatar.  Once again, delegates will be at it predicting warming temperatures, melting ice caps, rising oceans, and a general end-of-the-world scenario.  And once again, the climate change vultures who stand to make a buck -- or billions of bucks -- off U.S. taxpayers will be in attendance, urging global carbon taxes, income redistribution, and the creation of an all-powerful climate bureaucracy.

The problem, for the climate change vultures at least, is that there is less and less evidence of man-made climate change.  This year, as in years past, most of us living in the eastern U.S. are enjoying a rather idyllic autumn, with sunny days and pleasantly seasonal temperatures.  The near-term forecast is for slightly above-average temperatures and moderate rainfall.  It appears that this winter will be little different from most winters past.

Actually, all of 2012 was a pretty benign year.  There was distinctly less tornado activity than in years past.  One hurricane struck the U.S. mainland -- a category one causing little wind damage (though flooding low-lying coastal areas where one would expect flooding).  A serious drought continued in the western U.S., similar to though less extreme than earlier droughts of the 1930s and 1950s.  All in all, a year with no evidence of man-made climate change.

So why are the climate change types meeting in Doha at all, and why is the U.S. sending representatives?  Surely not because they actually believe that human activity is significantly altering the earth's climate.  And not because they think they could change things if it were.  They are meeting because climate change continues to be one of the left's leading avenues for global governance.  Instead of calling it the U.N. Conference on Climate Change, Doha should probably be called the Global Left's Conference on How to Take Over the World.

---


How many bottles of fine wine will be consumed by the climate change conferees at Doha?  How many kilos of caviar will be devoured?  How many "escorts" will be employed to entertain delegates, all at taxpayer expense?  And what plans are being proposed to make these bureaucratic perks permanent?  These are the questions that really need to be posed at Doha.  Better yet, forego meeting altogether, and eliminate the need to ask.


Read more: Articles: Doha-ing It Again


----------



## Wiseacre (Nov 30, 2012)

The plain truth is that the democrats get a lot of money from the environmentalists.   The republicans are pro-business, which makes them the natural enemies of the greenies.   None of which has anything to do with redistribution of wealth.   Why are you hijacking my thread, or resusitating it?   Start your own.


----------



## American_Jihad (Nov 30, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> The plain truth is that the democrats get a lot of money from the environmentalists.   The republicans are pro-business, which makes them the natural enemies of the greenies.   None of which has anything to do with redistribution of wealth.   Why are you hijacking my thread, or resusitating it?   Start your own.



My apologies W, I seen this in the OP:

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society? 

and thought I'd give the thread a bump...

Sorry...

A_J


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 30, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> The plain truth is that the democrats get a lot of money from the environmentalists.   The republicans are pro-business, which makes them the natural enemies of the greenies.   None of which has anything to do with redistribution of wealth.   Why are you hijacking my thread, or resusitating it?   Start your own.



Your doing a fine job of hijacking your own thread.



> So, what conclusions can we draw? On unemployment, for example, Mitt Romney has been claiming that, as a former businessman, he knows how to create jobs. (How? So far, hes kept that a secret.) But the spreadsheet says that, over the past half-century, the unemployment rate has fallen under Democratic presidents and risen under Republicans. This remains true even if you assume a one-year lag in the time it takes for a presidents policies to take effect.
> 
> Which partys presidents have done better with the most important statistic, which is GDP -- basically the size of the economy? Incredibly, its a tie! Applying a one-year lag, the Democratic presidents surge ahead by a minuscule 0.01 percent. Inflation? A straight comparison shows that Democrats have done a better job, but the one-year lag gives lower inflation to the Republicans.
> 
> Republicans win on lower taxes -- no surprise there -- but lower spending (the stat Id been dreading) goes to the Democrats. Put it all together and neither party has anything like a monopoly on economic virtue, even when defined in strictly conservative terms. Im sorry for this anticlimactic result, but numbers dont lie.



Which Party Is Better for the Economy? Neither!: Michael Kinsley - Bloomberg


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 30, 2012)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


Allowing any company to keep what it earns is NOT a subsidy.  I don't know how many times you people have to be told this.

Answer the question.

Is there any morality in wealth redistribution?


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 30, 2012)

The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.


It says no such thing.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 30, 2012)

Bern80 said:


> Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.


How does the $800,000,000,000 bailout of the banking  industry with taxpayer funds fit into that neat little equation?  

What do the multi-millionaire corporatist propagandists like Limbaugh and Hannity have to say about that?  What would they be saying if Obama had disbursed that same sum to aid distressed mortgage holders, to house and feed the homeless, to pay off the outlandish student loan balances, to buy health insurance for all those who need it but cannot afford it, to repair the infrastructures of depressed neighborhoods and dying towns, and so forth?  

And what about George W. Bush's profligate spending spree which wiped out the projected surplus he inherited from the Clinton Administration and caused the deficit we're now faced with?  

You ignore these things as if they are irrelevant and you focus on government's assistance to the poor in your complaint.  Does it ever occur to you that you might be just a bit brainwashed by right-wing propaganda?  

And that's not an insult, it's a serious question.


----------



## tooAlive (Nov 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.



Jesus talked about giving to the poor, *freely*. That is, out of your own good-will. 

They collected taxes in those days, and yet he mentioned nothing about having the government do it for you. I find it quite interesting when people quote Jesus and the Bible claiming they teach socialist principles. When in fact, they do anything but.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 30, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.
> ...


Jesus was talking about the _spirit_ of charity, not the means of implementing it.  Keep in mind the vast differences in social structures between then and now.  Today, the _method_ of caring for the poor is different but the motivation for doing it _(spirit)_ is the same.  It, along with everything else, is simply more complicated.

Whether or not the spirit of charity, i.e., "good will," attends the modern means of giving to the poor, while there are some who would let a beggar starve rather than toss him a coin the vast majority would not.  So in spite of the comparative complication in caring for the poor, the intention and the spirit remain constant.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 30, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.
> ...


Jesus said none of the LAW was abolished by him but fulfilled by Him....part of the Law required their citizens to give to the poor, provide for the needy....as example they were required to not harvest or sell all of the fruits and veggies that they grew but to let the needy come in to their fields to feed themselves....There were tithings required by the Law which are taxes....that required their givings....The Law was their government, a Theocracy....but still government....


When the rich man asked what he could do to be 'saved' he told the man to give up everything he had and give it to the needy...

On judgement day He gathered the Nations before Him and separated the sheep from the goats...


> *Matthew 25:31-46*
> 
> New International Version (NIV)
> 
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.



No, it certainly does not.


----------



## Newby (Nov 30, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



So, you think we as a society are all going to heaven because we redistribute wealth via taxation? That equals the 'spirit of charity'?  Do you think Christ cares that money was taken out of your paycheck and supposedly given to someone who had their hands out?  You have a lot to learn about salvation and Jesus Christ if that is how you understand His words.  Even if you have the 'spirit' of charity to give your own money after you've paid your taxes, if you don't DO anything about it, it will be meaningless in God's eyes.  Jesus Christ was here for the salvation of the individual, one person at a time, not as a nation.  If you have in your heart to help those less fortunate, then you will do so of your own free will, not by coersion via society at large.  That is the kind of heart Christ would want to see, taxation has nothing to do with it.


*Mark 12

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,j worth only a fraction of a penny.


43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, &#8220;I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything&#8212;all she had to live on.&#8221;*


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 30, 2012)

Newby said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > tooAlive said:
> ...



great point.  redistributed tax dollars are not the will or generosity of the public.


----------



## regent (Nov 30, 2012)

Every nation redistributes its wealth.
All governments determine how the nation's wealth is redistributed.
How the government determines the wealth redistribution determines not only  the economic well being of the nation, the nation's class system and to some extent the type of government.
Does a democracy need a middle class?


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 30, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Jesus was talking about the _spirit_ of charity, not the means of implementing it.  Keep in mind the vast differences in social structures between then and now.  Today, the _method_ of caring for the poor is different but the motivation for doing it _(spirit)_ is the same.  It, along with everything else, is simply more complicated.
> 
> Whether or not the spirit of charity, i.e., "good will," attends the modern means of giving to the poor, while there are some who would let a beggar starve rather than toss him a coin the vast majority would not.  So in spite of the comparative complication in caring for the poor, the intention and the spirit remain constant.



Welfare isn't charity. It's theft.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 30, 2012)

regent said:


> Every nation redistributes its wealth.
> All governments determine how the nation's wealth is redistributed.
> How the government determines the wealth redistribution determines not only  the economic well being of the nation, the nation's class system and to some extent the type of government.
> Does a democracy need a middle class?



All you're saying is that all governments are nothing more than a gang of criminals.


----------



## regent (Nov 30, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Every nation redistributes its wealth.
> ...



To use a Romney, I'm saying what I said. 
What does a gang of criminals have to do with the redistribution of wealth? 
Can you name a nation that does not redistribute its wealth? 
Are governments involved or not involved in redistribution process? 
Does America redistrubute its wealth? 
Is the government involved?


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 30, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was talking about the _spirit_ of charity, not the means of implementing it.  Keep in mind the vast differences in social structures between then and now.  Today, the _method_ of caring for the poor is different but the motivation for doing it _(spirit)_ is the same.  It, along with everything else, is simply more complicated.
> ...



Does that include corporate welfare?


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 30, 2012)

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



"Redistribution of wealth" is a criminal act.  



regent said:


> Can you name a nation that does not redistribute its wealth?



How would that prove it's not a criminal act?



regent said:


> Are governments involved or not involved in redistribution process?



Again, how would that prove it's not a criminal act?



regent said:


> Does America redistrubute its wealth?
> Is the government involved?



Again, how would that prove it's not a criminal act?


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 30, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare isn't charity. It's theft.
> ...



Sure it does, but it doesn't include tax cuts or deductions for legitimate business expenses.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 30, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Does that include corporate welfare?



TARP was the deliberate and calculated theft of the assets of the middle class on behalf of well connect looters at Chase, Goldman Sachs, BofA, et al. 

What other than criminal could you call it?


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 30, 2012)

Care4all said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Well, I don't think the man Jesus would have mentioned the government back then as the government didn't provide social services and there was nothing in any of his words that we have to suggest that he considered it the government's duty to do so.  He was obviously speaking of the individual.  And I'm pretty sure I'm safe in saying that he would have condemned any who did not see it as their personal responsibility but who felt righteous when they left it to others via the government to do.

When you have 47% of Americans who are currently paying little or no federal income taxes at all, does that mean that 47% of Americans are destined to hell because they aren't helping the poor with their taxes?


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 30, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Yes... all welfare/entitlement should be stopped.. the government is not your mommy, not your nanny, and not your cash cow.. it was never constitutionally charged to  be so


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 30, 2012)

DiamondDave said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I have long proposed a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the federal government's ability to give money or benefits of any kind to anY special interest whether people, demographics, businesses, socioeconomic groups, countries, or whatever unless the same benefit was given to all regardless of their race, ethnicity, demographic, socioeconomic standing.  So if you give Joe the Plumber something you have to give it to Warren Buffet too.  That would eliminate almost all of the graft and corruption in the political process at the federal level and would give us public servants again instead of career politicians controlling the process.

And, as the Founders intended, the states and local governments could do whatever they pleased in the area of social services, and there would be a hell of a lot more money available for the local charities.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



i have to agree.  are we truly equal or not?  most social, employment and economic programs say we are not. If we are all truly equal, then lets be equal.  that goes for congress too. they need to live by whatever plans they legislate for us.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 30, 2012)

Spoonman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Oh Goodie.. That means my white lightning ethanol biz is gonna grow like Exxon Mobil.. 

You just gotta cut SUBSIDIZING crap. The downfall of the plan would be that EVERYONE qualifies for solar subsidies. And everyone who is on welfare needs to qualified according to need testing. This is the LARGEST bipartisian agreement --- and we ought to RAM IT so far up Congress's ass that they can't fart til it gets fixed..


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



did i see you on that show moonshiners recently?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 30, 2012)

Spoonman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



THey jailed me in Season 1/Episode 1 --- fame is fleeting when you have ticks behind your ears..


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



i have to laugh, these guys are making hooch on national tv and the cops still can't find them?  heck they give their names and where they live   lol


----------



## USwings (Nov 30, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.


----------



## regent (Nov 30, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How would you prove it is a criminal act? Well you would look in the laws of all our governments so I'll wait. When you find it let us know.


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I think that depends.  States that provide more for the poor and disabled would be inundated by the poor and disabled from states that don't provide the same benefits.  Believe it or not a lot of people have moved into our state to collect welfare.  They don't of course come here for disability benefits because while we provide a lot to welfare moms, we are 50th in what we provide to the truly disabled, a sin IMO.


----------



## tooAlive (Nov 30, 2012)

Care4all said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



What Jesus is saying is that in order for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven he must do away with the love of material possessions he has and give to the poor.

Jesus taught us that money wasn't evil; the love of money was, and would consequently prevent us from obtaining what is truly important in life.

*That doesn't mean capitalism is evil. * At all. Capitalism is simply the freedom to profit from your efforts and natural abilities. Nobody is entitled to what you work for; each man is ultimately responsible to provide for himself and his family.

And from Jesus' teachings, he was encouraging us to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Capitalism and helping the needy have no problem co-existing together. One of them is simply an economic system that promotes freedom, and the other is simply what you do with the wealth you acquire.

You can support Capitalism and *not* _love_ money. You simply support the freedom to acquire wealth, and do with it as you see fit.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Oh Goodie.. That means my white lightning ethanol biz is gonna grow like Exxon Mobil..
> 
> You just gotta cut SUBSIDIZING crap. The downfall of the plan would be that EVERYONE qualifies for solar subsidies. *And everyone who is on welfare needs to qualified according to need testing.* This is the LARGEST bipartisian agreement --- and we ought to RAM IT so far up Congress's ass that they can't fart til it gets fixed..


Re: the bolded segment of your (above) comment:  During and for awhile after WW-II, my late aunt worked for the New York City Department of Social Services as a Home Economics Instructor.  She taught groups of welfare recipients how to cook nourishing meals from food packages her agency distributed to the poor.  Back then public assistance to the poor was called _Home Relief._  I believe it was changed to _Welfare_ in the early sixties.  

One thing I recall my aunt saying is every application for Home Relief was investigated for legitimacy and level of need.  So I fully agree with your comment.  But I was not aware the same circumstances do not currently apply, as your comment seems to suggest.  Are you saying that presently anyone who applies for public assistance is given money with no verification of need?  

If so, how do you know that?

Also, the New York City Home Relief agency operated out of store-front centers located in depressed neighborhoods.  If someone legitimately needed assistance with rent the claim was investigated and the rent was paid directly to the landlord.  Most food items were distributed by the agency, delivered if necessary, and vouchers were issued for redemption at local butchers (like food stamps).  

That system was understandably more practical than mailing out monthly checks.  But I read that the old system would not be cost-effective today.  

What do you think?


----------



## Foxfyre (Nov 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No I don't want the federal government means testing anything.  I want the federal government to be `100% impartial in everything they do.  If the welfare family gets subsidized housing, then Warren Buffet gets subsidized housing in the same amount.  If Exxon Mobil gets a million dollar tax break, then I get a million dollar tax break because I also run a business.

If an Albuquerque YMCA gets a federal grant to build a building--yes, you guys helped us build one--then every city gets a federal grant to build a building.

And so on.

That is the ONLY way to take corrupted politics out of the equation.

The states and local governments can take care of the welfare needs of their people, and if there isn't so many trillions going to Washington to be swallowed up in the federal bureaucracy before some is redistributed, then the states and local governments will have a lot more money at their disposal to create whatever sort of relief system or utopia the people want to have.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 30, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> The Bible commands that wealth should be distibuted equally. But this is not a Christian nation.



Fairness, Redistribution of Wealth and The Bible I have done my research which is in direct opposition to your claim.
Now, you will provide a rebuttal with facts or links to them, that support your claim.
You don't get to make drive by posts and then not get called on them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Claiming a moral obligation to fix wealth inequality is only actually moral if the reason there is inequality to begin with is not the responsibility of individuals. And that simply isn't so. In fact the only moral grounds for taking from the rich for the purpose of giving the poor more is if the rich are stealing from the poor.
> ...



*How does the $800,000,000,000 bailout of the banking industry with taxpayer funds fit into that neat little equation?*

The banks already repaid their portion of the bailout.

*What would they be saying if Obama had disbursed that same sum to aid distressed mortgage holders*

Yes, that portion of the bailout will never be repaid. Neither will the auto portion.

*And what about George W. Bush's profligate spending spree *

Bush spent way too much. Liberals wanted to spend even more. 
Obama showed they could do it. When will Obama reduce spending?
Now is his chance. I expect he'll fail, again.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 1, 2012)

USwings said:


> You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.



Your first error is in believing that only that which is illegal is a crime.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 1, 2012)

Any form of taxation that takes more from one person than it does from another is a redistribution of wealth.  If redistribution of wealth is immoral, then there is virtually no functional government that can be perceived that wouldn't be fundamentally immoral.


----------



## regent (Dec 1, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> USwings said:
> 
> 
> > You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.
> ...



Oh no, I make up new crimes every day, the problem is enforcing them. No one seems to care that I declared it a crime to belch on subways, people continue belching. Have you had better luck enforcing your laws?


----------



## USwings (Dec 1, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> USwings said:
> 
> 
> > You have proven that not all theft is illegal. But criminal act does not apply. Show the law that was broken to provide welfare.
> ...



I made no error, Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

So unless someone died and made you king, you just repeated your error several times.
Maybe your intention is to water down our language so that criminal act means something you don't like. If that's the case, I would say your use of the words criminal act is a criminal act.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 1, 2012)

USwings said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > USwings said:
> ...



ROFL!  Yeah, right.  So the Nazis committed no crimes when they put Jews in gas ovens?  Is that really your position on the issue?



USwings said:


> [So unless someone died and made you king, you just repeated your error several times.
> Maybe your intention is to water down our language so that criminal act means something you don't like. If that's the case, I would say your use of the words criminal act is a criminal act.



What error?  I'm not the one who believes that it's impossible for the government to commit a crime.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 1, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



The poor vote.  The truly disabled usually do not most especially the mentally disabled and therefore aren't as attractive to 'help' as are the poor.   That is a huge part of the corruption in the system.

I don'tknow how we get around that but the answer is somewhere within the social contract and private benevolence inspired by public awareness.  And yes, once the federal goernment got out of the welfare business,  the more generous welfare states would likely be inundated by freeloaders looking for the best deal.  Which would likely encourage the governors to get together to adopt a more or less sensisble uniform system to deal with the matter.

In my former town, all of us running social agencies did that.  People who had been hitting us all and really working the system were required to check in first at a central clearing station where they would provide positive ID and be willing to undergo a police background check.   That immediately weeded out easily more than half of the freeloaders who had been working the system.  The rest were provided immediately food or other assistance as their situation warranted and/or were sent to the appropriate agency for additional assistance.  In that way we were able to get a great many people who had simply fallen on hard times back to productivity and self reliance.   Once we started giving food and gasoline vouchers instead of cash and offered help to get off whatever substance they were addicted to, we helped many others to break addictions and regain productivity for themselves.

To me that is true charity.  It is making sure nobody who is hungry goes without food or that nobody who needs clothing does not receive it, etc., but it was also a system to help people regain their confidence and will to escape poverty rather than encouraging and making them more comfortable to remain in it..


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 1, 2012)

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > USwings said:
> ...



So it's impossible for the government to commit a crime so long as it passes some bill saying its behavior is legal?  What about if it said rounding up communists and executing them was  a legal government function?    How about if it says that black people can be the property of other people?  How about if it says that the government can put undesirables like Jews into gas ovens?

I just love it when fascist assholes like you show their true colors.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> To me that is true charity.  It is making sure nobody who is hungry goes without food or that nobody who needs clothing does not receive it, etc., but it was also a system to help people regain their confidence and will to escape poverty rather than encouraging them and making them more comfortable to remain in it..




Taking money from one person by force and giving it to another is not charity.  It's theft.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 1, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Any form of taxation that takes more from one person than it does from another is a redistribution of wealth.  If redistribution of wealth is immoral, then there is virtually no functional government that can be perceived that wouldn't be fundamentally immoral.



I wouldn't argue with that statement.  Taxation is theft, no matter how it's done.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Dec 1, 2012)

Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.



JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Dec 1, 2012)

Liberals being losers feel someone needs to make things even in life, so they have turned to the Federal Govt to do it for them.

Their neighbor went to college and became a doctor while they didn't and make less, well the Feds need to step in and tax him more than them to even the playing field. It is just "unfair" the doctor has so much disposable income each month compared to them living paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the typical conservative justification for oil subsidies, but you are as wrong as are the liberals who accuse the oil companies of receiving obscene benefits at the taxpayer' expense.  The dirty little secret is that the largest outlays from the oil subsidies are simply another form of welfare to the poor and a whole bunch of the rest goes to development of green energies so beloved by recent administrations.



> . . . .The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.
> 
> But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in &#8220;oil subsidies.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Dec 1, 2012)

Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices. 

Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.



Foxfyre said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.
> ...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot giving a oil company a tax break for R&D and exploration to give them the incentive to hire people and drill for oil in extreme locations like the ocean and arctic, is not the same as some fatfuck like you sitting on your ass doing meth all day on welfare.
> ...


Oh no..According to liberals, notorious B I G oil is just showered with yearly gifts from the federal government.
If these subsidies were as the libs surmise, the Obama admin would have eliminated them long ago.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 1, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.
> 
> Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.
> 
> ...



So we eliminate everything labeled an oil subsidy.  No more strategic petroleum reserve that would avert disaster in time of war or when critical oil supplies are disrupted.  Everybody okay with that?

And we eliminate most of the assistance to the poor in heating their homes.  Think the liberals will be good with that?

And we cut off the grants and breaks to green energy R & D.  Most conservatives would say okay.  Most liberals would scream bloody murder.

And for the rest of it we might or might not have as much oil exploration and production--that would depend on how production friendly the government is to the oil companies in other ways.  And yes, some of the petroleum products we use and depend on might cost a bit more, but probably no more that would the reduction be in our taxes if the government was honest enough not to tax us for what it gives to all those other programs.


----------



## American_Jihad (Dec 2, 2012)

*The Fallacy of Redistribution*

By Thomas Sowell 
September 20, 2012

---
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

---

The Fallacy of Redistribution | RealClearPolitics


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> You can support Capitalism and *not* _love_ money. You simply support the freedom to acquire wealth, and do with it as you see fit.



{"Or did you say it's the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it." 
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. 
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. } - Ayn Rand


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.
> 
> Everytime the Feds think they are so smart taxing a company, the consumer takes it in the butt. The carbon tax comes to mind....as if a company is going to pay that tax without making Joe Schmoe pay $1 more for their product in the end.



Most people know about supply and demand, and the left points to a "world market" to explain the extreme prices of gasoline. But 40% increase in domestic production due to the easing of restrictions under Bush make this a bit questionable. 

Another common saying in economics is "what the market will bear." Gasoline prices are more set by what the market will bear than by supply and demand. Prices go up until driving habits change and reduce profits, then they come down. Oil constantly tests the boundaries of how far the market will stretch. 

Cutting subsidies to oil companies will have very little effect on the price at the pump, as it won't alter what the market will bear.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

All nations have a system for redistributing the wealth. In many 101 economic textbooks redistribution of wealth is listed as one of the basic functions of government.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 3, 2012)

The middle class isn't being fleeced to give money to the rich.  The middle class is being robbed to support a growing entitlement class of poor.   The taxes the middle class pay isn't going to support rich people but for endless public benefits for the poor.    In addition, more and more taxes are needed to support the public employee unions who get to retire at 50 with no loss in income for their lifetimes.  It wasn't rich people bankrupting cities like Stockton and San Bernardino, it was the police and firefighter unions.

Crisis has put scrutiny on unholy alliance of politicians, unions - Sun Sentinel


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 3, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.
> ...



Cutting subsidies to the oil companies will cut into programs that most liberals strongly favor.   As I posted previously about $1 billion of the subsidy goes into the strategic petroleum reserve.  Does anybody want us to do away with that?   Another billion and a half goes into fuel subsidies for low income families.  Does any liberal want us to discontinue that program.  The final billion and a half is largely focused on developing green technoligies and industries.   Courtesy of the federal government, a refinery in Borger TX recently completed a large addition that allows it to make fuel from beef fat rather than petroleum.  Okay, a lot of conservatives would say we don't need to fund that.  But would many liberals agree?

Do you know why diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline these days?  And this drives up costs for all of us because all the big trucks and trains run on diesel?   It has become twice as expensive because the government requires all the sulphur be removed from it before it is sold, and that is an intensely expensive process.  So which do you want?  Cheap diesel or no sulfur?

Gasoline prices would be much lower if all the federal and state taxes were removed from them, and if the refineries could tool to make one blend of gasoline instead of the dozens of different blends required by different areas and states as well as the federal government.   Just removing the ethanol requirements would save us a lot per gallon.   It is extremely expensive for the refineries to close down to reformulate a batch of gasoline.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Dec 3, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Like Romney?


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 3, 2012)

Romney is yesterday's news.   He ran a campaign promising to improve the economy and provide jobs.   He just never understood that the public isn't interested in jobs.   obama promised more free stuff and that's what they wanted.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 3, 2012)

Sorry, but I see nothing in Romney's history to suggest that he forcibly took money from anybody in order to give it to somebody else.  Which is what wealth redistribution is.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?



During the Great Depression people would work for whatever they could get.  You want dinner, chop wood for two hours.  Sweep floors.  During the Great Depression there was no such thing as food banks, pantries, welfare or any safety net at all.  Americans were so willing to work that thousands of them migrated to the fields to pick fruit and vegetables.   During the Great Depression, you worked or you died.

Since the Depression we made poverty comfortable.   

If we replaced the social safety net with the same kind of benefits that were available during the Depression, we might again produce a great generation.   What we're doing now is producing the next generation more like Greeks than Americans.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Cutting subsidies to the oil companies will cut into programs that most liberals strongly favor.   As I posted previously about $1 billion of the subsidy goes into the strategic petroleum reserve.  Does anybody want us to do away with that?



No, but the strategic oil reserve isn't a subsidy, it's a safety net. 



> Another billion and a half goes into fuel subsidies for low income families.  Does any liberal want us to discontinue that program.



Again, this isn't a subsidy to oil, this is a subsidy to the poor. That can be argued on it's own merit, but it is not money paid to big oil, it is the purchase of oil at market price which then is given to "the poor" at reduced prices.



> The final billion and a half is largely focused on developing green technoligies and industries.   Courtesy of the federal government, a refinery in Borger TX recently completed a large addition that allows it to make fuel from beef fat rather than petroleum.  Okay, a lot of conservatives would say we don't need to fund that.  But would many liberals agree?



Again, I'm not sure any of this ends up in the pockets of the oil companies. Chevron very publicly claims that they kick in funds in addition to the federal government to support these Green boondoggles. Sounds like well connected looters end up with these funds.



> Do you know why diesel fuel is more expensive than gasoline these days?  And this drives up costs for all of us because all the big trucks and trains run on diesel?   It has become twice as expensive because the government requires all the sulphur be removed from it before it is sold, and that is an intensely expensive process.  So which do you want?  Cheap diesel or no sulfur?



Cheap diesel. Sulfur is heavy and falls back to the ground. Low sulfur diesel generates more carbon monoxide - a real pollutant, than standard diesel does. 



> Gasoline prices would be much lower if all the federal and state taxes were removed from them, and if the refineries could tool to make one blend of gasoline instead of the dozens of different blends required by different areas and states as well as the federal government.   Just removing the ethanol requirements would save us a lot per gallon.   It is extremely expensive for the refineries to close down to reformulate a batch of gasoline.



Yep, all very true.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 3, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, oil companies will just make their oil more expensive to consumers when the Govt goes after them.....nice strategy. They will always pass on more costs to the consumers with higher prices.
> ...



So why subsidize them?


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?



Didn't we also have institutions for our disabled?  Hospitals for them to live in rather than forcing them on the streets to fend for themselves?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 3, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting subsidies to the oil companies will cut into programs that most liberals strongly favor.   As I posted previously about $1 billion of the subsidy goes into the strategic petroleum reserve.  Does anybody want us to do away with that?
> ...



Just a quick comment before I have to dash to a meeting.  As you've noted, a whole bunch of things rated as 'oil subsidies' are not that at all.  The oil companies are profiting from the green energy stuff and will do it as long as the government pays them to do it.  Some are making out like bandits, but it is the government's choice that they do.

Interesting comment on sulfur though.  I need to research that.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?
> ...



During the Great Depression there were government jobs for those that could work, there was welfare that those could not. If those things had not been put into place by FDR other types of governments were being talked about.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 3, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?
> ...



Those hospitals are now illegal and have been illegal since 1980.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



No there wasn't.   FDR attempted to end the Depression by creating government jobs and a social safety net.  That prolonged the Depression right up to WWII when the war ended it.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."


----------



## Dreamy (Dec 3, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Too many people are lazy fat flucks and the government today is breeding them.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



If we laid economists end to end they couldn't come up with a conclusion. Two economist's opinion are not noteworthy when contrasted with hundreds that see things differently. 
Hoover and the Republicans were in charge of the economy from 1929 to 1932 and that should have been ample time for the economy to recover if it was prone to do so without help, but it didn't.  The real question is, did FDR in his quest to balance the budget stop the New Deal too soon? Another question would the American people have waited much longer for solutions, in America, there was Townsend, Long and others creating ideas, and in Europe Hitler Franco and Mussolini creating ideas. 
In any case FDR has always been rated by historians as one of America's top three presidents and Hoover as one of the bottom ones. I'll go with the hundreds of historians not the two economists.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> If we laid economists end to end they couldn't come up with a conclusion. Two economist's opinion are not noteworthy when contrasted with hundreds that see things differently.
> Hoover and the Republicans were in charge of the economy from 1929 to 1932 and that should have been ample time for the economy to recover if it was prone to do so without help, but it didn't.



Why?

Considering that Hoover was a Keynesian who engaged in the same stimulus and redistribution programs that Roosevelt did. In fact, the make work programs such as the CCC were extensions of programs the Hoover administration started. Why do you think it's "Hoover Damn" and not "Roosevelt Damn?"




> The real question is, did FDR in his quest to balance the budget stop the New Deal too soon? Another question would the American people have waited much longer for solutions, in America, there was Townsend, Long and others creating ideas, and in Europe Hitler Franco and Mussolini creating ideas.



ROFL

Yes, had he only outlawed the private ownership of property, all would have been hunky-dory...



> In any case FDR has always been rated by historians as one of America's top three presidents and Hoover as one of the bottom ones. I'll go with the hundreds of historians not the two economists.



And your partisan bias has nothing to do with it...


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > If we laid economists end to end they couldn't come up with a conclusion. Two economist's opinion are not noteworthy when contrasted with hundreds that see things differently.
> ...



I think most historians would say that one of  FDR's goals was tosave capitalism, and he apparently did. Of course America never had laissez faire capitalism-always had govenment involvement.


----------



## tooAlive (Dec 3, 2012)

When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 3, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..



Rand was right. There never was going to be an invasion of Soviet Armies, just the degeneracy of the nation into a system of looters, moochers, and leaches. Welcome to the Obamanation. We won't call it "communism," we'll call it "paying their fair share."


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2012)

The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.


----------



## Staidhup (Dec 3, 2012)

The fact that our legislator's passed laws that over the years resulted in forcing manufacturing off shore is the very reason the middle class has stagnated and not expanded. Maybe it's time to think before you vote. Now what you have is the very rich, shrinking middle class, and ever expanding labor pool dependent upon government handouts.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.



If the people holding the wealth are government officials that is correct.
When Private citizens hold wealth it makes no difference to anyone else what is in their bank account.
There is no "share"..There is no "pie"..There is no magical pot of money from which we all draw. And the idea that if one has more then by consequence another MUST have less is patently FALSE..
By your logic, the two people who won last week's Powerball Lottery prize have TAKEN money from other people. Newsflash, It didn't cost me a DIME. 
If Joe Smith gets a raise in his salary, this affects me how?
If an author writes a book that becomes a NY Times Best Seller and realizes a windfall advance on his next book, do YOU suddenly find money missing from your bank account?
If a techie guy invents a way for people to communicate via their computers and hand held devices and as a result becomes a multi millionaire, this harms others HOW?
Do you see where we are going here? Your premise is tied not to logic, but to emotion.
Somehow you and others on your side believe that somehow the fruits of the labor of others should be "shared". And that so called sharing should be enforced by government under the threat of sanctions.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one. 
Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others? 
Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed? 
What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?


----------



## Dreamy (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one.
> Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others?
> Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed?
> What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?


 
The problem is the balance is tipping against the tired beaten up earners in favor of the able bodied takers.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> I think most historians would say that one of  FDR's goals was tosave capitalism, and he apparently did.



Most historians are nothing more than paid government propagandists.  Like the pinko historians, Roosevelt hated capitalism.  He's the one who originated the scheme of "never letting a good crisis go to waste."  He was always attacking "malefactors of great wealth," just like Obama.  



regent said:


> Of course America never had laissez faire capitalism-always had govenment involvement.



So Roosevelt had to save America from something it never had?

That's the kind of logic only a libturd could love.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one.
> Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others?
> Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed?




200 years ago no one could name a nation that didn't practice slavery.  the fact that every government on earth is nothing more than a gang of criminals doesn't prove that criminality is just.



regent said:


> What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?



Boundless prosperity.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 3, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.



When you can define "too much wealth," perhaps your theory might have some credibility.  Until then it's just so much mindless babble.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 3, 2012)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Making a judgment on who can earn and not earn income is often spurious. That's not really a big part of the equation for me. The big part of the equation for me is why should we create a huge dysfunctional and corrupt system that wields our money with almost no say by the people? We know it has disaster written all over it. Does anyone go to school to learn how to be Santa Claus? No. And I can tell you that the people who control these welfare programs are as corrupt as the day is long.

If we're going to have welfare, it needs to cut out the leaches. There needs to be an across the board limit. Make it $22,000. If you didn't earn it then the IRS sends you a check and you can make sure your basic needs are paid for. Some of you may say, $22,000! Well consider that we're spending $67,000 a person on these welfare programs now and it's an f'ing bargain.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I think most historians would say that one of  FDR's goals was tosave capitalism, and he apparently did.
> ...



I don't think I ever said America had laissez faire capitalism and I can't name a nation that does, can you? After the Consitution took effect we have always had government involvement in our econony.  
American does have a mixture of capitalism and socialism as do most countries. 
Historians usually work for universities and colleges. FDR was of wealth and he was considered a traitor to his economic class. 
If you read on FDR you might discover he pulled the plug on the New Deal because he had hopes of balancing the budget. You might also check on FDR's second bill to Congress it was a bill to reduce the budget. The Congress shot it down.


----------



## Dreamy (Dec 3, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.


 

 The redistribution of power from the people to the government is much more dangerous. That is what we are facing right now and every day that Obama and his ilk are in power.


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 3, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.
> ...



The fact that you would question a sentiment that is so easily understandable and needlessly ask for a stricter definition when anyone with an awareness of the current income inequality gap could easily understand, leads me to conclude that you are one of the super rich and defending yourself form having your riches taken away from you, or, you have been convinced by neo-con agenda that being rich and wealthy is the end-all in life, and that these people exist as royalty once did in England: not to be challenged, not to be touched, no matter how much people below them might be suffering, and how much they might be causing this.

You and people who hold your sentiment are so full of shit. Go back to Carl Rove.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 3, 2012)

^^^ Pathetic brainwashed moron.

The real word application of Wealth Redistribution is to take from people who work in order to give to politicians and bureaucrats in Washington DC.   Incomes in the DC metro have grown during this Recessiocovery, while they've declined everywhere else.

It wouldn't hurt you to develop a little skepticism when somebody advocates for Wealth Redistribution.  His motives are most often entirely Self-Serving.


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 3, 2012)

boedicca said:


> ^^^ Pathetic brainwashed moron.
> 
> The real word application of Wealth Redistribution is to take from people who work in order to give to politicians and bureaucrats in Washington DC.   Incomes in the DC metro have grown during this Recessiocovery, while they've declined everywhere else.
> 
> It wouldn't hurt you to develop a little skepticism when somebody advocates for Wealth Redistribution.  His motives are most often entirely Self-Serving.



I can easily turn that around and say it is you who is the pathetic brainwashed moron. It just so happens that my position actually reflects reality, whereas your reflects an idealism that is inherently subjective and based off of your skewed values. Had you any skepticism with regards to your own beliefs, perhaps you might demonstrate some credibility. 

BTW, you obviously took way more from my post than I even implied. You are arguing a straw-man. I was simply addressing income inequality among citizens, not any fouls that may exist in the handling of our money. However, I would think that instead of coping out and saying "gov't is the enemy!," and therefore concluding that less government is better, how about actually trying to fix government. The ultimate paradox of the republican party lies in their "great dead leader", Reagan, who, while running for the presidency, said that government is the problem. This makes him the biggest hypocrite ever. He is running for something he thinks is a problem. The only way he could have remained sincere in his words was if he took himself out of office to "lessen government," instead, he stayed, spent, started wars, and expanded government. Oh, the irony coming from republicans in their reverence for this man.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 3, 2012)

Your reality?  The reality of pea green with envy small-mindeness that begrudges the wealth accumulated by people who get an education, work hard, and manage to earn more than $200K per year?

No thank you, I'll stick with my own perception and values.


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 3, 2012)

boedicca said:


> Your reality?  The reality of pea green with envy small-mindeness that begrudges the wealth accumulated by people who get an education, work hard, and manage to earn more than $200K per year?
> 
> No thank you, I'll stick with my own perception and values.



Wealth begets wealth. It's not as if their children start at the same level as everyone else. To posit a level playing field is what is idealistic.  I understand even the rich have to work hard, even though they get a mile head-start, but the amount of income today is greater than it has ever been in this country, and if you don't see that as a problem, then you are either selling yourself out to an ideology, or are one of the rich.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> Again can anyone, name the nation that does not redistribute its wealth? There might be one.
> Can anyone name a nation that does not take from some of its citizens and give to others?
> Can anyone name a period in our history when wealth was not redistributed?
> What would happen to a country that did not have a policy or program for wealth or income redistribution?



Yeah.. The USSR. The western European socialist nations. 
The USSR was the ultimate in failure. 
The EU countries are buried in their socialist policies which have become unsustainable.
The kind of wealth redistribution you people prefer is called "confiscation".


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> All nations have a system for redistributing the wealth. In many 101 economic textbooks redistribution of wealth is listed as one of the basic functions of government.



You keep believing that.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?



That is not even close to accurate. I cannot believe you took the time to post that bullshit.
And THAT is all I will say to your nonsense.
Listen, get the fuck out of here. Your drive by nonsense posts are annoying.
You are a fart in the wind.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > GoneBezerk said:
> ...



The oil companies are NOT subsidized. The explanation has been posted. Pay attention.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > During the Great Depression America had a huge population of people not interested in jobs, working, or self supporting, they were lazy free loaders and were an enourmous drain on the hard working Americans. Then a strange thing happened, as jobs multiplied, those people left America and were replaced by a new group, a group that wanted to work, and be self sufficient. We even called the new group the Greatest Generation. Now that group has left again and still another group of lazy shiftless people have replaced them.  Where do those lazy free loaders come from and so quickly? How can America rid itself of these people and replace them the hardworkers we know exist?
> ...


No.
Go read your history. People were living in tent cities. Shacks. Their cars. Out on the streets.
Men lined up for work everywhere it was available. They uprooted their families and traveled cross country to find work where ever it could be found. 
The Hoover Dam project( Originally called "Boulder Dam") was manned almost entirely by people out of work. They lived in close to unbearable desert heat. The work days were long and full of hazards. The pay was not so good. But it was a JOB.. And that was all that mattered. An income so a man could support his family. Back then it was a matter of duty and pride. Men supported their families or suffered the shame of failure.
Today, there is no shame. There is no failure. Government made poverty not only comfortable but desirable by creating the entitlement mentality.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



The Great Depression STARTED in 1929 with the Market crash.  Christ what the hell do they teach in history classes anymore!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Historians have opinions on past events. Economists use real data to produce factual statements. 
Ever wonder why there are economists in government, in the markets, even in business..
But where are the historians? Oh they are hiding on university campuses writing research papers at the expense of those paying college tuition.
Actually the capitalist system was saved by the Legislative Branch when it passed laws governing all trading activity on the stock and bond markets. 
How the SEC Protects Investors, Maintains Market Integrity, and Facilitates Capital Formation (Securities and Exchange Commission)


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Dec 3, 2012)

^^^
To be fair, historians have their use. To be realistic, many if not most of them have hidden agendas.


----------



## regent (Dec 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I think you are seeing the Great Depression as a uniform period from 1930 to the end. But it was like two depressions both bad but the one under Hoover was asking for trouble. Under FDR low paying government jobs became available welfare was taken over by the federal government and hope came to America. 
The one thing that I saw and remains with me is the feeling of superiority people with a job seemed to  feel over one without a job. People that had been out of work for years when they finally got a job would make comments about the lazy shiftless people that didn't have jobs. 
There is a reason the people elected FDR four times. Those reasons are hard to convey to people that never lived through that era. But historians that have studied the period see it somewhat in the same light as the people that lived it. The historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. I agree.


----------



## American_Jihad (Dec 3, 2012)

*Letter: There's no right to redistribute wealth*

Posted November 27, 2012
Larry Viles, Knoxville

---
 Perhaps he has confused the U.S. federal government with charity, an institution many of his fellow citizens choose to contribute to, and he is certainly free to do so. Perhaps he has confused the U.S. Constitution with the Communist Manifesto.

Letter: There's no right to redistribute wealth » Knoxville News Sentinel


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 3, 2012)

regent said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


I think not.
FDR extended the Great Depression by creating huge deficits.
FDR got elected 4 times for a number of reasons and not one of them had anything to do with greatness.
But for our entry into WW II the Great Depression would have lasted well into the 1950's.
BTW, FDR was adamantly opposed to US Involvement in WW II.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 4, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..


But the problem with that perception is there was no wealth to redistribute when the communists came to power in Russia -- and that is why they were able to come to power.  

In today's America there is no shortage of wealth.  The problem is it has been diverted upward to a small segment of the population who are hoarding it.  And redistribution of that wealth does not mean reducing those hoarders to poverty but rather leaving them somewhat less wealthy.  

So the notion that communism could arise in America is simply absurd.  Just give some thought to which nations have turned to communism as a means of survival.  In every example those nations were totally devoid of wealth.


----------



## BOBO (Dec 4, 2012)

...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor???  Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!


----------



## Care4all (Dec 4, 2012)

if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 4, 2012)

Care4all said:


> if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?



Depends on the welfare and the assets.  My son's on disability.  He can't have more than $2000 in the bank.  He can however have a house and one car.  He doesn't, but he can.  Of course, somehow he'd have to pay for it on $445 a month plus $200 in food-stamps.


----------



## regent (Dec 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



If the Great Depression could have ended earlier why not under Hoover, he had some years and during those years little happened. But Hoover did realize that something had to be done, so he did the usual conservative bit and had money set aside to help business. He was elected four times because the people wanted him as president. A number of anti-FDR posts rave that FDR slipped America into WWII with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Ever read of the American isolationists? 
Well this leads no place, new history keeps emerging. 
One more question, however, how did our entry into WWII end the Great Depression?


----------



## MikeK (Dec 4, 2012)

regent said:


> [...]
> 
> One more question, however, how did our entry into WWII end the Great Depression?


Those who believe that have been brainwashed into thinking the War didn't cost anything.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 4, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The concentration of too much wealth in the hands of too few rarely works out well.



Then what do you call the concentration of the federal government spending over 25% of GDP?


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 4, 2012)

regent said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



It didn't.    Our selling arms to the allies got us out of the great depression.  Only when they ran out of money did we enter the war.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 4, 2012)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Social programs are only "good" when they are temporary in nature unless the person is proven incapable of providing financial needs.
> Unemployment insurance is a great example of a "good" social program.
> Food Stamps, AFDC etc. etc, is a great example of a failed program.



AFDC?  That program was elimiated during the Clinton Administration (see TANF),  Some military families recieve WIC and there is nothing 'good' associated with American citizens not having enough to eat.

I think you need to find another hobby; posting here requires at least some basic knowledge which, sadly, you do not have.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 4, 2012)

BOBO said:


> ...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor???  Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!


You might want to ask the citizens of Denmark about that.  Denmark is considered the _happiest place on Earth._  And Denmark is a socialist nation -- as are most Scandinavian countries.  

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

What does that do to your theories about socialism?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 4, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> ^^^
> To be fair, historians have their use. To be realistic, many if not most of them have hidden agendas.



Most of them don't know jack squat about economics, but they believe they're qualified to pontificate on economic issues like the cause of the Great Depression.

Any historian who believes "Robber Baron" is a legitimate economic term automatically unmasks himself as nothing more than a scumbag propagandist.


----------



## regent (Dec 4, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...



Pontificating is about all they do. One school on economics publishes its theories and another school their theories and another school.... And the theories differ. Of all the Social Sciences I would put economics as the softest of the soft. Have they written a tried and true manual yet on how to avoid depressions/recessions, have they written a manual on how to recover from depressions/recessions? Keynes is still all we have.  
Economists are great at figuring out why they think things happened, after the fact stuff. But that's what historians do also. 
I sympathize with economists they are dealing with a subject that has so many variables that it will take another 100 years to be able to predict with some accuracy. Is Say's law still held to be a law? As for historians they write of the past, much easier and much more accurate.


----------



## tooAlive (Dec 4, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..
> ...



Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.

Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.


----------



## tooAlive (Dec 4, 2012)

MikeK said:


> BOBO said:
> 
> 
> > ...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor???  Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!
> ...



I always enjoy hearing about the Danes when discussing socialism.

Walking around Denmark, asking random people if they're happy or not is definitely a great way to measure the effectiveness of socialism. But just a quick question;

How many people did they survey? Do those people know what it's like to like in a more capitalistic environment?
*
A man that has only ever eaten at McDonald's may tell you the food is great; but he has no idea what food has the potential to taste like in a 5-star restaurant.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 4, 2012)

Care4all said:


> if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?



No, not even close.

If you have a car, you have more than $2K in assets.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 4, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?
> ...



You can own your home and still qualify for SSDI and food stamps.   Medicaid does consider personal assets in most states, but in most states you can own some major assets and still qualify for at least some Medicaid, etc.   Also single parents can get WIC and qualify for child care credits even though they own a house and car and there are many other benefits available in various states for low income families.

And you can own lots and lots of stuff and still get welfare.  I work in a program in which we work directly with welfare families to help them learn to budget and provide options for getting training, getting a G.E.D. or whatever they need to get on their feet and work themselves out of poverty.  A great many want no part of it.  They don't WANT out of their current situation.  But some do.

It is instructive though how 'rich' America's 'poor' can be though.  When you walk into a home of a welfare mom and observe the modern appliances, flat screen TV, Play Station for the kids, and other amenities, you can see how it would be so easy not to try to get off welfare.  We pray together a lot and some of our prayers focus on our being able to get past feeling judgmental about it.  Nobody knows the heart or fears of another person.  But it is a fact that except for some of the hard core homeless, our poorest citizens are wealthy compared to the poor in most of the world.  And many of our poor have absolutely no incentive or practical reason to want to escape their 'poverty'.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 4, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> Wealth begets wealth. It's not as if their children start at the same level as everyone else. To posit a level playing field is what is idealistic.  I understand even the rich have to work hard, even though they get a mile head-start, but the amount of income today is greater than it has ever been in this country, and if you don't see that as a problem, then you are either selling yourself out to an ideology, or are one of the rich.




In your worldview, yes.  If the government taxes away the income from people who work so that they cannot save and invest, then only the already wealthy will retain (some) of their wealth.

Most of the wealthy people I know, (and that's quite few), are self-made.   I'd prefer to maintain a system which enables others to join them as opposed to  government sponsored spoils allocation and rent seeking cronyism.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 4, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > BOBO said:
> ...


Do a Google search on keywords, _"Denmark - Happiest Country."_  You will find opinions derived by many equally credible sources in addition to CBS News, which you choose not to believe.  

Re: your reference to comparison with a _capitalistic environment:_  What exactly do you mean by a "capitalistic environment?"  And how do you think it differs from a _socialistic environment?_  Do you believe the Danes don't have jobs, cars, computers and television, comfortable homes, etc?  What is it you feel is so good about capitalism the Danes are lacking?  

What the Danes don't have is endless war, a divisive social atmosphere, stressful emphasis on acquiring money, a significant percentage of homeless and/or impoverished citizens, a massive prison census, a shamerfully inadequate health care system, and an exceptionally high unemployment rate.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 4, 2012)

Okay - you want to be like Denmark?

Then 90% of the U.S. population will have to be of 100% Danish (or we could substitute Nordic) descent.  And 80% of the population will have to be Lutheran.

What Denmark has is a very homogenous society in terms of race and religion - and a small population.  That is hard to translate into a large country with a long history of immigration from around the world.

Oh, and their birth rate is very low and propped up by Islamic immigration.  Check back on your paradise in 20-30 years.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > When you say, "Redistribution of Wealth" I think of..
> ...


"Diverted" another class warfare buzz term. See below.
Only thing is there are no laws which can pass constitutional muster that would satisfy your insatiable desire for the possessions of others.
Newsflash....It's not yours. It never was intended to be yours. You cannot have it.
If you want more, go earn it yourself.
You people have changed your narrative from simple taxation to outright confiscation.
Confiscation based on a hatred of a certain class of people. A hatred which can only be defined as bigotry.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Umm the escape hatch is locked. Now, respond to the request. "Define too much wealth"..
No one is interested in your opinion of the request. Only your direct response to the request.
Your answer should contain one thing....An AMOUNT.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

Care4all said:


> if you have more than $2000 in total assets you can't qualify for Welfare.....right?



Hardly the point. Most people on public assistance are gaming the system and have found it pretty easy to evade the law.
For example. Far left politicians have sen fit to make it illegal for a school system to check income eligibility for students claiming free or reduced price meals.
As witnessed by yours truly..Dateline 1990...Hilton Head Island SC..
I am in line behind two very well dressed black women each with an overflowing cart of groceries. It was Sunday so I gave them a hall pass on the nicer looking clothing. 
The pay with a combination of cash and Food Coupons..
Now I am a bit put off. I pay for my items. I see these two women getting in to their OWN luxury vehicles. One a Cadillac the other a Lincoln. Neither car was more a than a few years old. 
Amazing. Here we have liberals who weep for the poor. They champion social safety nets.
The deny with vitriolic reactions when told there are people gaming the public assistance rolls. 
I saw it and still see it every day. People on some kind of public assistance driving nocer cars than I , a working and producing person could ever afford. Of course, I don't take out 25% interest auto loans so I can have "A nice ride"....
Anyone who ignores the great taxpayer ripoff that is the lack of government enforcement of the laws prohibiting welfare and other public assistance frauds, is a FOOL and a LIAR.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Pathetic brainwashed moron.
> ...


Define "income inequality".
Please provide a link to any written policy whether it be by law or by public perception that income should be representative of  "equality".


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

regent said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



"hoover "had some years"....Hmm ok, this is where one of you libs fail to cover your tracks..
So Herbert Hoover was according to you, fix the economy in one term. Now let me get this straight..It was Hoover's watch, correct?
Ok. So why is it Herbert Hoover had that duty and responsibility and failed while ( fast forward to the present) the current President has had THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME to fix the economy but has not, and you people excuse Obama from any responsibility AND you have a ready made excuse namely "it's Bush's fault"?
Sorry Charlie Tuna....What's good for the Goose...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You are living in a Parallel Universe.
Prior that little incident at the Pearl Harbor Naval base our involvement in WW II was what?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

Wry Catcher said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Social programs are only "good" when they are temporary in nature unless the person is proven incapable of providing financial needs.
> ...


Call it whatever you wish. It's all the same. Entitlements.
Oh, the federal government should reduce the wages of every non essential cushy job holding federal employee and give it to soldiers in combat as part of their pay. TAX FREE.
Then shit can every single federal employee that has a non essential do nothing redundant job. 
Even poorer people can have plenty to eat if they used their brains just a little bit.
The problem is government entitlements have made poverty and dependency into a way of life.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

MikeK said:


> BOBO said:
> 
> 
> > ...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor???  Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!
> ...



And who says we are guaranteed to be kept "happy"?
We have the right to "pursue happiness"..We are not guaranteed it.
If you want to walk about with an ear to ear grin on your face, then by all means, pack your shit and move to Denmark.
By the way. Considered to be the happiest place on earth by WHOM?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Denmark is a VERY SMALL country with a largely homogeneous population. It has a small economy, virtually no natural resources and not much in the way of industry.
The people are of one generation after another who have lived in this tiny country and have most likely never been outside of Scandanvia.
It is for all intents and purposes a socialist utopia. It works for tiny countries with stable obedient populations with a high consciousness of duty to Country. 
Socialism as we have witnessed with the abject failure of the USSR cannot work in countries with large diverse populations. 
Perhaps if the US had 320 million blonde haired blue eyed people of the same heritage who have been trained one generation after another that individualism is a rejected concept, it may work. 
Copenhagen awaits you.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Yet you are 100% convinced that socialism is THE path to prosperity.
Facepalm.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > tooAlive said:
> ...



I t was a tropical paradise with a corrupt and cruel government headed by an elite ruling class.
It became a very poor desolate place run a by a small elite ruling class.
At one time Cuba was the largest nation on Earth. The Capital was in Havana,, the Government in Moscow and the people were in South Florida.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 4, 2012)

boedicca said:


> Okay - you want to be like Denmark?
> 
> Then 90% of the U.S. population will have to be of 100% Danish (or we could substitute Nordic) descent.  And 80% of the population will have to be Lutheran.
> 
> ...



Our birthrate is very low and is propped up by over immigration both legal and illegal.  What's the dif?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 4, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Okay - you want to be like Denmark?
> ...


320 million vs 5.54 million...A diverse US population vs a virtually homogeneous population of just 2% ethnic minorities.
An emphasis on the individual in the US vs groupism among the Danes.
Case closed.


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 4, 2012)

boedicca said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Wealth begets wealth. It's not as if their children start at the same level as everyone else. To posit a level playing field is what is idealistic.  I understand even the rich have to work hard, even though they get a mile head-start, but the amount of income today is greater than it has ever been in this country, and if you don't see that as a problem, then you are either selling yourself out to an ideology, or are one of the rich.
> ...




I'm not challenging the fundamental nature of our economic system, or advocating pure socialism. So, don't jump to such an extreme simply because we don't agree. I am simply pointing out the facts of income inequality that we are seeing, and can attribute this to capitalism in its current form (unregulated, crony capitalism and an insistence on free markets as the cure for everything) as being the cause. The rich will amass wealth in ever fewer numbers, consolidating the money supply into fewer hands, leaving the rest out to dry. Whether or not these people "earned" this becomes irrelevant. Capitalism creates a tipping point where once you become wealthy enough, amassing more and more wealthy becomes easier and easier, because you already have the pieces in place to make investments, etc.. There needs to be a certain amount of socialism mixed in with our policies to correct this. Otherwise, our country will become a plutocracy, which is basically already is, but even more so.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Yep.  The country of Denmark occupies a land area smaller than New York State and has a population of less than New York City.   To try to compare the USA with that is to compare the capabilities of a mouse with that of an elephant.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 5, 2012)

tooAlive said:


> Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.


Cuba had one export product; sugar.  And as you've partially indicated most of the plantations were owned by rich Americans who had Batista in their pockets.  Its only other industries were gambling and prostitution, both of which belonged to and were controlled by the American Mob.  The vast majority of Cubans were impoverished.  So I don't know where you get the idea that Cuba was anything close to being a wealthy nation.  If it was the communist revolution there couldn't have gotten off the ground because the people would have no need for it.



> Is it devoid of wealth now? Not even. The government just hoards it all, and the citizens don't get to see any of it.


Wealth is a relative term.  The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy.  Our embargo has a lot to do with that.  

Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of _peons_ and _patrones_ and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of.  More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.

Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed.  The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on _protective_ government.  

Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat.  But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of _terrorism,_ kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.


----------



## Wiseacre (Dec 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




They eat little fishes for breakfast, how happy can they be?   

Besides, lately they're economy is pretty close to recession territory.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 5, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.
> ...


Apparently your knowledge or pre revolutionary Cuba is limited to.......ZERO.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Dec 5, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.
> ...



Google Image Result for http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/55/84/40/havana-street-life.jpg

Google Image Result for http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IU68rPUOcso/0.jpg

Life in Castro's Cuba


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 5, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > tooAlive said:
> ...



Pre-revolution Cuba was no more paradise than any country is if you look at every aspect, but it was far far superior to the Cuba under Castro.  The anti-Batista propaganda put out by Castro has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by many leftists who desperately want to believe that Communist Cuba is superior to what it replaced.  It isn't.  Batista was certainly no angel, but Cuba was a much happier place with more opportunity over all and was an American vacation destination before the revolution.

Here is a good concise synopsis of what pre-Castro Cuba was like.   As in all countries, there was good and bad.   But for those ordinary Cuban citizens who lived under both regimes, there is no question that given the choice, they would have taken the corrupt and self-serving Batista over Castro.

Cuba Before Fidel Castro / Contacto Magazine

As an aside, my uncle who lives here in Albuquerque was very well acquainted with Cuba pre Castro.  And has told us many stories of those days.   And he was the Braniff pilot who flew Batista out of Cuba when Castro took over.


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 5, 2012)

MikeK said:


> BOBO said:
> 
> 
> > ...one can be subsidized through taxation of others labor???  Socialism... don't bankrupt a country without it!
> ...



That is simply because people who have given up their freedoms and been forced into slavery and have been in that capacity all their lives behave like the "SIMS" characters in the computer games.

Would you really want to have the government setting not only your salary but also the quota you must fill in your daily work and not have any opportunity to better yourself?

On second thought, you are a big union supporter... you probably would.

Personally, I'd rather not be so "happy" that I walk around like a person stupified by drugs all day long.

By the way, it seems you will get your wish, because that is exactly the direction Obama and crowd are pushing us.

Immie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2012)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.
> ...



*The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista*

That's why the average Cuban with a car still drives a car bought under Batista. LOL!

At least he has free healthcare, to ease the pain of that boot stamping on his face...forever.


----------



## tooAlive (Dec 5, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Wealth is a relative term. *The average Cuban is better off today than he was under Batista* but that country is by no means sufficiently productive as to throw off the communist yoke and adopt fully functional democracy.  Our embargo has a lot to do with that.



Okay, it's obvious to me you have no idea what you're talking about. Luckily for you, some of us do. This is just a tiny bit of information to point out that life in Cuba today is an absolute nightmare. So listen up;

Did you know Cuba has two different currencies? The Cuban Peso and the CUC. 

One CUC (Same value as USD) is worth about 27 Pesos. The government pays workers in Pesos, and the minimum monthly salary in Cuba is 120 pesos, while the maximum is 600 pesos made normally by doctors. For the sake of this argument, lets say our average worker earns 300 pesos a month, which is pretty good.

Since Cubans are paid in Pesos, we'll need to convert that amount into CUC. 300 / 27 = *$11 CUC*.

That's $11 to feed yourself or even your family. 

Walk into any government owned store to buy your groceries or things for the home, and you'll find stuff at roughly the same price you'll find at a Wal-Mart here.

Tell me, how much food can you buy for $11 at Wal-Mart? Do you think you could survive a month off $11? Things cost the same, so if you can't do it here, why would it be any easier in Cuba?

That's less than Cubans made back in the days of Batista, with all the exploitation going on as you say. And that was over 50 years ago. Can you imagine that? Who do you think they'd rather be under?

Oh, but they have free healthcare! At least they're not dying right?

Okay, lets say there's an elderly woman that needs to go to one of the larger hospitals a few provinces away for treatment. How will she get there? Do you think she can walk a few hundred miles?

No silly. She has to take a car. How much do you think that ride will cost her? Considering prices of fuel are pretty much on par with the rest of the world, she'd be expected to fork out about $60 for this trip. The ride back is usually included, as most of the time these independent chauffeurs will wait for the person at the hospital.

So, that's $60 for a trip to the hospital. Lets assume the trip was much closer, and the driver is someone she knows and gets a "hook-up." Half off, $30. The average salary a month is *$11*! How will she even be able to afford $30 for a ride to the hospital, let alone $60! Oh, and not to mention an elderly woman will definitely NOT be making anywhere near that much from her retirement, which makes things even more unimaginable.
*
She can't even afford the ride to the hospital!*

I'm only grazing the tip of the iceberg here buddy. Because once you get to the hospital, the conditions would shock you. I know, I just got back from there 6 months ago. Had to take my grandfather there for some procedures. I think he was better off just staying home.

Now, lets go back to the issue of food, clothes, ect.

You may argue that Cuba has a shortage, right? Due to the embargo? Yes, Cuba has a shortage for the *government-provided rations* only. There's basically nothing being given out by the government anymore.

But, if you have the $$$, you'll be fine because there's plenty of stuff. Food, brand-name clothing, shoes, cars, ect.. Oh, but how much can they buy with $11 a month? You tell me. And in case you don't believe me, here are a few pics of the average grocery store in Cuba.






Bay Area's business ties to Cuba could grow - SFGate










Travel Outward: Lessons From Cuba: What Can We Learn From Cuba's Two-Tier Tourism Economy





But can Cubans shop there? Yeah.. until they spend their $11. Then they have to wait till next month. Here's where they get their rationed food:

Empty. And that pic is pretty old, just imagine how much better things have gotten.










If you think people in Cuba have it better now, you are very, very wrong. There's nothing better about how things are now. Not their healthcare system, not anything. The Cuban government is a prime example of one of the biggest mass-exploitations we've ever seen.

And again, that's just the tip of the iceberg buddy. Maybe I'll write another post about how the government is even further exploiting the doctors being sent to other countries..


----------



## tooAlive (Dec 5, 2012)

And don't even bother comparing them to Haiti, because the Haitians are much better off.

The fact that they have a higher per capita GDP means nothing to tell you the real distribution of wealth. Haitians are paid much better than Cubans. And Cubans were beyond better off with Batista.

The only ones that are better off now are Castro and his pig, sitting on $4 billion. Exploited from the Cuban people.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jan 7, 2014)

*Obamacares Stunning Redistribution of Wealth*

January 6, 2014 by John Perazzo






For all the attention Obamacare has drawn in recent weeks, few observers have noted that the law is having the unexpected, yet most welcome, effect of transforming scores of millions of Americans, virtually overnight, into generous benefactors of the less fortunate. A real-world examplerepresentative of countless millions of similar situationswill make this crystal clear:

Lets say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult in San Francisco earning $45,960 per yearthe income level at which federal Obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health-insurance premiums. As a San Francisco resident, you are permitted to choose from among 16 separate Obamacare-compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called Bronze plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expensesthat is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacarethe Democratic Partys gift to a grateful America.

Let us contrast your case with that of Joe, another 54-year-old single individual in San Francisco, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long. Joe currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Joe doesnt qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurancethereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.

...

This, in a nutshell, is the exquisite beauty of Obamacare: It is redistribution  er, um, er  It is neighborliness on a scale never before seen in this country. And many millions of Americans are poised to reap its glorious benefits! As a form of shorthand, you can simply refer to these fortunate millions as Democrats, in honor of the party of benefactors that is, at this very moment, purchasing their eternal political allegiance with your dollars. Take pride in the fact that this wonderful arrangement is but one aspect of the fundamental transformation of America that our president is so faithfully pursuing, true to his word. At its essence, it is an arrangement designed to take from certain individuals according to their ability to pay, while giving to other individuals according to their needa profoundly neat and elegant formula if ever there was one. It almost makes you wonder if anyone else has ever thought of anything like it before.[1]

NOTE:

[1] A central principle of Marxism, popularized by Karl Marx himself, is this: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Obamacare?s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Clementine (Jan 7, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



No private companies should be subsidized.   Also, whenever the government redistributes money, a lot of it disappears as it goes through Washington because they need money to pay all the bureaucrats.    

If people are able to work, they need to do something to earn money.   If they can't find a job, then they can work for taxpayers.   There are so many elderly who can't mow or shovel snow in the winter.    We should expect something in return for giving up our earnings to the able bodied.

I think if we started doing that, many would figure they might as well get a real job if they have to work for what they get.


----------



## GreenBean (Jan 8, 2014)

American_Jihad said:


> *Obamacare&#8217;s Stunning Redistribution of Wealth*
> 
> January 6, 2014 by John Perazzo
> 
> ...



The Scenario unfolding in our time was predicted  and plotted years ago - It's known among the Liberal-Progressive Sociofacists as the *Cloward- Pliven Strategy*

The Cloward&#8211;Piven strategy was outlined in 1966 by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.* It called for deliberately overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system devoid of a work ethic*,  "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".  The strategy was outlined in a May 1966 article in  The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".


In their article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling class only used welfare to enslave the poor, that by providing a social safety net, the rich were able to hold a bay what they viewed as the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Poor people [The Proletariat] can only advance when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward stated in 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. 

Cloward and Pliven pointed out that the number of Americans subsisting on social services probably represented less than half the number who were actually eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand what they viewed as entitlements would bankrupt the system. *The result, theoretically would be "a profound financial and political crisis" - basically an initiating domino that would eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA and leave Humanity ripe for the ensuing onslaught of Marxism or other illogical derivatives of it. *

Rudolph Giuliani, while serving as NY City Mayor attempted to expose Cloward-Pliven in the late 1990s. As part of his drive for welfare reform he accused the militant scholars by name and cited their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jan 8, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *Obamacares Stunning Redistribution of Wealth*
> ...



---> A Liberal America- What would America look like if Liberals had their way
National Socialism, Platform Planks of
Democratic Socialists of America
Obama's Communist Czars - Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd - CommieBlaster
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 9, 2014)

Mexico has the very rich and the very poor. We're headed in that direction.
The richest man in the world is Mexican.


----------



## Agit8r (Jan 9, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



My experience has been that almost everyone likes to think they are productive members of society, even if that is questionable.  If they don't think that they are, most would like the opportunity.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 9, 2014)

Agit8r said:


> My experience has been that almost everyone likes to think they are productive members of society, even if that is questionable.  If they don't think that they are, most would like the opportunity.



Ask yourself;

Do you own a business?

Do you have a job in the private sector?

If either of these are a "yes," you are a productive member of society.

Now ask;

Are you on welfare?

Do you work for the government (Welfare premium edition?)

If either of these are a "yes," you are a leech and a drag on society.


----------



## kaz (Jan 9, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



Yes comrade, government allowing companies to deduct their expenses is giving them money.  All money is the people' money.  When government doesn't take money away from corporations, that is the same as government taking one person's money by force and giving it to someone else.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you people so much?  What you say is not just consistent with Marxism or could be construed as Marxism, it's just directly from the manifesto and the lips of every Marxist since.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


The fact of the matter is, oil companies consistently make a lower return on investment than most other businesses. Gasoline prices adjusted for inflation has stayed relatively flat over the last 60 years (I didn't go back further because I got tired of the same old same old. 

One other thing; when we find alternative fuels to fossil fuels the people had better hope the oil companies of today have a finger in the pie because they are in the habit of investing heavily for future needs. They are not the monsters some less than thoughtful people try to make out they are. 

This coming from a liberal who has studied economics enough to understand investment and profits!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 19, 2014)

MikeK said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> > Cuba wasn't devoid of wealth when Castro took over in '59. In fact, the sugar industry was booming. Many American business men even owned sugar plantations there. And that was one of many industries that practically ceased to exist when communism took over.
> ...



Duh . . . Wrong!  The average Cuban is far worse off today then he was under Batista.  In those days Cuba was the wealthiest country in Latin America.  It had a booming tourist industry and it exported sugar and cigars.  Most of the cars you see on Cuban streets were purchased during the Batista regime.



MikeK said:


> Were it not for its communist system the Cuban population would quickly revert to its former status of _peons_ and _patrones_ and either the U.S. or Russia would attach an economic siphon to whatever productivity it is capable of.  More than likely it would become what it was before the revolution.



The vast majority of Cubans would be overjoyed return to being "siphoned" by the U.S.  Their standard of living would increase 10 fold.

Your spouting commie propaganda.  It bares no resemblance to an actual fact.



MikeK said:


> Once again, communism cannot possibly take hold in a nation whose people are not hopelessly impoverished and autocratically oppressed.  The whole communist scare as put forth in the fifties by the likes of Eugene McCarthy was a political scam intended to keep the public in line and dependent on _protective_ government.



Sure it can.  It took hold in Cuba and it almost took over in Chile. Both of these countries were prosperous before the communists subverted their governments.



MikeK said:


> Sadly there still are Americans who are intimidated by the imagined communist threat.  But that bogey has largely given way to the fear of _terrorism,_ kept alive by our support of Israel and constant provocation in the form of collaterally damaging drone attacks and other infuriating military aggressions in the Middle East.



It sad that there are any Americans stupid enough to believe that communism hasn't been an utter disaster wherever it has been tried.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2014)

More moral than what most of Africa or central america has with a small upper class and large lower. This is what you are fighting for in America. A rich person with 10 billion dollars can afford to have only 50 or 100 million instead. That poor person that makes 10 thousand dollars, sure as hell can't.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> More moral than what most of Africa or central america has with a small upper class and large lower. This is what you are fighting for in America. A rich person with 10 billion dollars can afford to have only 50 or 100 million instead. That poor person that makes 10 thousand dollars, sure as hell can't.



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Mexico has the very rich and the very poor. We're headed in that direction.
> The richest man in the world is Mexican.



There's a few Africa nations that follow the conservative economic system.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 19, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



That's exactly what the rich did to the middle class.  No doubt they purposely caused the financial meltdown of 2007 and looted the US tax payers.  They rigged the tax system so it is not fair.  They shifted the tax burden more onto us the middle class.

I find it funny you cry about fairness when it was them who rigged the system and ripped you off.  It is as if you don't believe class warfare exists.  Do you?

Oh, and stop asking what is fair and start asking WHAT WORKS?  If taxing the rich at 5% doesn't work, try 6%.  Don't fucking cry that 6% isn't fair.  It was more before Bush got into office.  So "what's fair" and "what works" is probably what they were paying before Bush gave them tax breaks they didn't deserve and they didn't work.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> More moral than what most of Africa or central america has with a small upper class and large lower. This is what you are fighting for in America. A rich person with 10 billion dollars can afford to have only 50 or 100 million instead. That poor person that makes 10 thousand dollars, sure as hell can't.



No, that is not what we are fighting for. I have not seen a single person on any thread who wants the African paradigm.

But at the same time, we don't want ambition, motivation, and incentive destroyed by socialist policies which do not create prosperity.

Income inequality is not in and off itself terrible, and the top 1% DOES NOT TAKE THEIR WEALTH from the less wealthy. Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 19, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


The ideal thing is to tax people in a progressive system to collect sufficient revenue to operate government and help those WHO CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES.

Having said that, it is idiocy for anyone to claim that the rich did anything to reduce the wealth of the middle class or the less wealthy. That is absolute hog wash. Look at the link in my post above. While it may be true that our working class has increased productivity, it is not because of working harder, but rather because technology by which they can work helped that increased productivity to occur. One must also realize that the disparity of income is more because the bottom half of our income spectrum has not increased their skills sufficient to keep up. (Also in the link from the post above.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 19, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?




This is the essence of wealth redistribution:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-3.html#post9447468

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470417

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/364693-richard-strauss-nearly-a-nazi-4.html#post9470876


Wealth Redistribution = Theft.  Socialism/Communism = The arbitrary tyranny and corruption of thieving degenerates and monstrous brutes.    


As for books on the matter, the greatest evisceration of it is:

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also:

Capitalism and Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## regent (Jul 19, 2014)

Every nation has a method for redistributing the wealth, and how that wealth is redistributed helps determine what type of nation one has. For example, to have a democracy depends on large part on having a middle class, and having a middle class can depend on large part on how the nation's wealth is distributed.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> Every nation has a method for redistributing the wealth, and how that wealth is redistributed helps determine what type of nation one has. For example, to have a democracy depends on large part on having a middle class, and having a middle class can depend on large part on how the nation's wealth is distributed.



There ARE many ways to redistribute money. Sweden taxes their people very highly. But their redistribution is spread around regardless of income status. It is a chosen welfare state, not a socialist state as only 5% of its production is government owned or closely controlled.

In my opinion, as a nation founded on the principles of self reliance, redistribution should only be aimed at those who cannot help themselves. A great deal of income disparity is based on choices, and I don't believe we owe those who made bad choices early in life, to include education, location, motivation, ambition and incentive. Read the following article based on studies:

Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...




What the super rich are doing with taking all the resources out of the economy is THEFT!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



And how, precisely, are they doing that?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


Horse puckey! When I see people whining and crying over what the rich make, I know they do not understand economics and the various engines which drive the economy.The wealth of our economy is not finite. Individual wealth can be increased without regard to the super rich. That is proved by the fact that the turn over in the top 1% is 98% every decade. The 1% DOES NOT DISTRACT from the income potential of the less wealthy.  Don't blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune Other than those who are incapable of working, anyone making the right choices about education, has the right motivation, incentive and ambition can improve his wealth in spite to the 1%


----------



## Care4all (Jul 19, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


He said "with taking all of the resources out of the economy is theft"....

I'm not certain what he means by resources...but I didn't take it as him crying a river about what rich people "make" as you seemed to automatically assume?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 19, 2014)

regent said:


> Every nation has a method for redistributing the wealth, and how that wealth is redistributed helps determine what type of nation one has. For example, to have a democracy depends on large part on having a middle class, and having a middle class can depend on large part on how the nation's wealth is distributed.



Of course, the government of every nation is nothing more than an organized criminal gang.  All you've said is that all criminals steal. 

We already knew that.


----------



## 1776 (Jul 19, 2014)

Most liberals are on welfare or believe someday they will end up on welfare, thus they support stealing from others to support them.


----------



## Rozman (Jul 19, 2014)

Wait till Lizzie gets in the WH....
Her first speech will be "You think you earned that"....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2014)

Matthew said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Mexico has the very rich and the very poor. We're headed in that direction.
> ...



Low taxes, limited regulations and small government are followed in which African nations?


----------



## dblack (Jul 19, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.



Hell yes. And the simplest way to do that is to quite taking it from them in the first place.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 19, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


I like to approach this topic with three questions:    


How much do you earn?

How much does (did) your father earn?

How does one go about "earning" ten billion dollars?  How about fifty billion?  


The concept of morality becomes very relevant as we explore the issues prompted by these simple questions.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 19, 2014)

Care4all said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


It doesn't matter what he meant. But one person can actually consume only so much "resource". His comment only makes sense if he means economic resources, ie MONEY, and when they spend on consumer goods they create jobs.

Another way to put it, it doesn't matter what resources he "takes" since it does not distract from the less wealthy.


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

Chris said:


> GE paid no taxes last year.
> 
> The super rich had their rate cut from 26% in 1990 to 17% today.
> 
> ...



You've got a bigger problem.

Your head is stuck squarely up your ass.


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



"Concept of morality" ?

Really ?


----------



## alan1 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
Just saying.


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households *


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


*80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.*

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


*As the rich get richer and store more of their loot off shore and out of the nation's economy*


*Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory*

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation&#8217;s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all&#8212;

&#8220;The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie*. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution*.&#8221;

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


















The whole reason democracy was invented as a means to make the rich and powerful give up their stranglehold on wealth and power. Of course they don't believe in democracy, they see it is an upstart insurgency of the rabble upsetting the balance of nature where rich white males rule as they were meant to.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???



The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all

The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.* However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.*


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


----------



## alan1 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???
> ...



How about if we make everybody pay the exact same tax rate (percentage) and see what happens.
Or do you think some people should be fucked over simply because they make more money than you?


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 20, 2014)

How much my father earns vs. how much I earn.

Interesting question.

I earn about 7 times what my father earned at the time he bought his first house.

The house he bought for $4,100.  Today it's on the market for $398,000.  

So everything's beautiful in terms of income vs. inflatabucks?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...




It's called PROGRESSIVE TAXATION!!!


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent 

Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. *The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.
*

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent







The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that groups share of total income.

 The share of total taxes paid by the richest one percent (21.6 percent) is almost identical to that groups share of total income (21.0 percent).

* The total effective tax rate for the richest one percent (29.0 percent) is only about four percentage points higher than the total effective tax rate for the middle fifth of taxpayers (25.2 percent)*

Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports


















"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


Over twice as much as my father did.

How much does (did) your father earn?[/quote]Less than half of what I make.





> How does one go about "earning" ten billion dollars?  How about fifty billion?


 I will answer that one with a link to an article discussing studies: Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune


The concept of morality becomes very relevant as we explore the issues prompted by these simple questions.[/QUOTE]Thus far I see nothing about your questions that relate to morality; success and failure? Yes! Morality? No!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 20, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.





Are you proud to identify yourself as a moron?


1.  Should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? 
Better not, after all they is us! Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobils shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html



2. And, of course, the antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxons earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice


3. The non-thinking segment of the public has been conditioned to hate the oil industry. Very few realize the extent to which *they are subsidized by this industry*. 
According to the [Exxon] company's income statement, the amount of taxes it paid in 2008 was 2.5 times as much as its net profit. The $45.2 billion profit figure makes a snappy headline, but the $116.2 billion in taxes that it paid is relegated to a footnoteif that. Exxon's tax bill breaks down like this: income taxes, $36.5 billion; sales-based taxes, $34.5 billion; "all other" taxes, $45.2 billion. Exxon, Big Oil Profits Evil Only Until You Weigh Their Tax Bills - US News


If Exxons 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filers share would be $1,259/year.  Still hate Exxon?    Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million | Tax Foundation



4. " Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit" Taxation Hero: ExxonMobil Pays $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Profit - Forbes




No doubt you are the product of government schooling.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

Listening said:


> "Concept of morality" ?
> 
> Really ?


Yes.  In other words, the difference between basic right and wrong.


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

...and you're full of shit.

1) The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, so whining about their tax rate is ludicrous. 

2) Rich people will invest their money into the economy which creates jobs. Poor people can't create jobs with their minimal contribution to the economy via welfare and food stamps.

Someone like me with a BA in Economics and MBA get sick of you bed-wetting scum talking out your ass on subjects you are clueless about. 



Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???
> ...


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

alan1 said:


> I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
> 
> Just saying.


That part is true.  But how about the third question, which you've ignored.  

Considering how you earned your living, and/or how your father earned his.  How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?  

When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?

For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money.  How would you define it?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


Less than half of what I make.





> How does one go about "earning" ten billion dollars?  How about fifty billion?


 I will answer that one with a link to an article discussing studies: Don?t blame the 1% for America?s pay gap - Fortune


The concept of morality becomes very relevant as we explore the issues prompted by these simple questions.[/QUOTE]Thus far I see nothing about your questions that relate to morality; success and failure? Yes! Morality? No![/QUOTE]


If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

*These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.*

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing. 



Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

     Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

     If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front endwhen income is divided up, and the back endwhen it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

*     There is only so much corporate income in a given year. *

*The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes*. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.


The Zero-sum Nature of economics

%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution

Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. *Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism * often called trickle-down economics  saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying *These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.*


1%er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead To Violent Class Revolution | FDL News Desk


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
> ...



In a free and fair market, distribution of economic power has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with personal choice. We give our money to people who provide us with the things we want and need. We grant economic power to those who do things with money that we appreciate.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???


One answer to that question is if you have children how do you feel about the fact that as a rule (not the exception) they probably will not earn as much as you have, and their children will not earn as much as they did, and so on.  But there is a class of Americans who, as a rule, will continue to accumulate greater fortunes than their forebears.  

In other words, we are presently witnessing the rise of a financial aristocracy in America, along with the emergence of an accompanying peasant class.  

Presuming you are not among the One Percent, do you feel there is nothing wrong with this?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



Weird, you bring up all the numbers THEN conflate it with individuals who don't pay INCOME taxes that are only 42% of federal revenues? lol

False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY tool conservatives EVER have


In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of *just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion.* Literally half the standard corporate tax rate. *Worse yet, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid no U.S. federal income taxes. That&#8223;s right, 0%.*


This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. *These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil*.


Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.

Even socialism/communism the political elites and their friends still hoard all the resources from the masses and the masses have no chance to ever acquire wealth themselves.

In our economic system, someone can grow up in the ghetto and become rich from their talents in the classroom or sports venues. 

Idiots like you whining about rich people passing on their wealth to their "family" is ludicrous. Why shouldn't we come take your family's resources under the same premise.....nobody owns anything, oops that is your socialism. 



MikeK said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> ...and you're full of shit.
> 
> 1) The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, so whining about their tax rate is ludicrous.
> 
> ...



MORE right wing nonsense./ I'm shocked. No seriously, I am 


*Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"... *


The Republican sham of lower taxes and less regulation doesn't help anyone but the richest Americans and Big Business and kill jobs and opportunity for almost everyone, especially in the middle class and poor. 



The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. *Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.*



*CONservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk. *



Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice.* The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, *according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

* The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that groups share of total income.*


Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 20, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? ?



The parasites constitute 47 to 50% of the electorate.

So the Constitution has been amended in order to allow the government to steal from taxpayers in order to feed, insure, clothe and quench the thirst of the parasitic majority.

.


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED. 



Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and you're full of shit.
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.
> 
> Even socialism/communism the political elites and their friends still hoard all the resources from the masses and the masses have no chance to ever acquire wealth themselves.
> 
> ...






Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries 


*The report finds the U.S. ranking well below Denmark, Australia, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain in terms of how freely citizens move up or down the social ladder*. Only in Italy and Great Britain is the intensity of the relationship between individual and parental earnings even greater.

Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries



The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S.







The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. | TIME.com


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Stupid fuck....I lived in Europe 3 times, shut the fuck up.

They have people living in apartments forever and have zero hope of ever owning a piece of grass. 

Care to compare private HOMES here to over there.....



Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, my Cal Poly degree with a minor in history means nothing 




You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Stupid fuck....I lived in Europe 3 times, shut the fuck up.
> 
> They have people living in apartments forever and have zero hope of ever owning a piece of grass.
> 
> ...




For a guy with a degree, YOU sure act funny to scientific data


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Safety school retard grad....



Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED.
> ...


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility. 

FYI...most Europeans don't own a car or a home. 

Riding public transportation and living in an apartment is the average European's life. 



Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid fuck....I lived in Europe 3 times, shut the fuck up.
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?




*WE TRIED YOUR MODEL BEFORE WE HAD THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD, REMEMBER THE POOR HOUSES AND ABJECT POVERTY FOR 95% OF US?*



Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

*George Washington*, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." *And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
*
The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

*James Madison*, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "*the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."*

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???
> ...



Our children both earn more than twice as much as my husband and I ever earned together.  And all their friends that they grew up with almost all also out earn their parents.   And my generation and their generation started out without a lot of help from anybody.  But now we are fully into the generations indoctrinated with an entitlement mentality.  Some are encouraged to NOT do what is necessary to acquire wealth as they don't want to give up any of their government freebies.  Still others have bought into the victim mentality that the wealthy are screwing them and they look to unions or government or others for whatever fortune might drop in their lap.  And all that screws the numbers and the percentages.

Most of those who ignored and ignore these kinds of phenomena still seem to be doing okay though they are handicapped by the worst economy and the most jobs and business unfriendly administration in my increasingly long memory.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *WE TRIED YOUR MODEL BEFORE WE HAD THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD, REMEMBER THE POOR HOUSES AND ABJECT POVERTY FOR 95% OF US?*



Who is "WE"?

What model was that? 

.


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?
> ...



What???  

Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" provide moral justification for taking money away from people simply because we think they've accumulated too much?


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Europe has been ruled by the rich for centuries yet liberal scum here point to Europe as the economic model the US should follow....fucking insane. 

Economic liberty came from the US, not from Europe.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

alan1 said:


> How about if we make everybody pay the exact same tax rate (percentage) and see what happens.
> 
> Or do you think some people should be fucked over simply because they make more money than you?


The fact that you think of progressive taxation as being "fucked over" demonstrates you are in need of some basic education and  strongly suggests you've been brainwashed by such millionaire right-wing propagandists as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.  So let's start with a simple example.

If you earn $20,000 a year a 20% flat tax rate will reduce your income to the poverty level.  But someone who "earns" $10,000,000 a year will still be sitting on eight million dollars.  

This is America.  Not Saudi Arabia.  If the Founders of this Great Experiment could have anticipated the kind of wealth its economy would generate do you doubt they would have included provisions in its Constitution to prevent such exploitative inequity -- especially considering how it operates to negatively affect the Nation's integrity and stability?  

The super-rich of this Nation have accumulated their fortunes by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation.  They owe this Nation an equitable return in terms of a tax level which will serve the interests of the Whole, not just a One Percent segment.  

As a shorthand reference, keep in mind that during the most prosperous and productive decades in American history, the 40s to the 80s, there was a *91%* progressive tax rate.  And America was strong!


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> The super-rich of this Nation have accumulated their fortunes by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation.



Hmm.. what does "exploiting" mean in this context? Other than "put to productive use"? 

I totally agree that if their wealth is ill-gained, it should be recovered. And they should probably go to jail. But if it's not, if their wealth was acquired by honest trade and industry, what have they done wrong? Why do they "owe" anyone anything, other than the work they did to earn their wealth?


----------



## JoeNormal (Jul 20, 2014)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



In your imagunation.  Louisiana takes more than it gives.

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And [MENTION=21991]bripat[/MENTION], Florida is even worse.  Leech.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.
> 
> FYI...most Europeans don't own a car or a home.
> 
> ...



Really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? lol


How'd that work out for Dubya?

* You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Europe has been ruled by the rich for centuries yet liberal scum here point to Europe as the economic model the US should follow....fucking insane.
> 
> Economic liberty came from the US, not from Europe.



Weird, false premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have

*80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.*

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated



The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on *bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. *Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?




*WE TRIED YOUR MODEL BEFORE WE HAD THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD, REMEMBER THE POOR HOUSES AND ABJECT POVERTY FOR 95% OF US?*



Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

*George Washington*, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." *And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
*
The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

*James Madison*, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "*the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."*

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *WE TRIED YOUR MODEL BEFORE WE HAD THE PROGRESSIVE PERIOD, REMEMBER THE POOR HOUSES AND ABJECT POVERTY FOR 95% OF US?*
> ...



Closest thing to laize affair the US ever had.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...




Anecdotal crap

The only reason the American economy is stalled is because the GOTP kicks the leg from under it, every time the economy begins to recover in the name of cutting the deficit 

The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. *Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?*
> ...



I'll take that as a "no".


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I gave it to you, TWICE


*"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."*

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!

Now they want you to believe them when they claim they know what's best for the rest of us? 


The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the *450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.*

In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."


*WHICH SIDE ENDED UP BEING CORRECT? LOL*

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


* You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk*


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



No, you made some comment about my "model" (what??) and copied and pasted an irrelevant article. Twice.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Weird, so the Founders are irrelevant to why the US should create policy?


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> ...and you're full of shit.


And you are a new nitwit on my Ignore list.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???
> ...



*One answer to that question is if you have children how do you feel about the fact that as a rule (not the exception) they probably will not earn as much as you have, and their children will not earn as much as they did,*

Why would that happen now, when it never did before in American history?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



*In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%, based on their U.S. pre-tax income of $7.5 billion. *

They're in a very capital intensive business. 

*These royalties are not taxes *

Substantively, how are they different?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.
> ...



*Social Immobility: Climbing The Economic Ladder Is Harder In The U.S. Than In Most European Countries *

Let in millions of unskilled illegals every year, take 12.4% of a worker's lifetime income for a low or no return Social Security system and act surprised when the average worker can't save money. Idiots.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

1776 said:


> Why are liberals/socialists worried about what other people make???


Mostly because of the misguided opinion that what rich people get is somehow limiting what the less wealth can get. They could not be more wrong.


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three is the typical shitstain that believes the GOV stealing other people's money is going to make up for his fucked up trailer park life.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > The super-rich of this Nation have accumulated their fortunes by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation.
> ...


There is a link in my Signature Line.  If you use it you will come away with substantial answers to your question.

You are correct that in this context _exploit_ means "put to productive use."  But the point is how much of the results of that productive use is rightfully owed to the facilitator, which is the Nation.  

Could the One Percent have achieved their phenomenal financial success anywhere else?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



What do the policies you advocate have to do with the Founders?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED.
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



The "facilitator?"  ROFL!  I suppose one could ask the same question about the electric company.  After all, what business would operate without power?  The answer is a business owes precisely what it costs the electric company to provide power, and not one cent more.  However, the business really doesn't owe the government a thing because the government is an extortion racket that forces businesses to use the "services" it provides.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.*


Yet since wealth is not a zero sum figure, The 20% DOES NOT DETRACT $.05 FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY.]





> The middle class has been eviscerated.]


Again, NOT BY THE TOP 20%.]





> *As the rich get richer and store more of their loot off shore and out of the nation's economy*]


Because of modern technology and the new tendency of foreign banks cooperating with the US IRS, that is current minimal.]





> Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth.


I agree that Federal Income Tax should be progressive.]





> The whole reason democracy was invented as a means to make the rich and powerful give up their stranglehold on wealth and power. Of course they don't believe in democracy, they see it is an upstart insurgency of the rabble upsetting the balance of nature where rich white males rule as they were meant to.


What a pile of unmitigated horse manure. Would you rather live under a dictatorship? If so, move to a socialist or communist state. Authoritative or dictatorial government is a requirement for either to exist even for a little while.

The point of a democracy is to give the people freedom. That can either be freedom to succeed or freedom to fail. The top tiers of wealth do not detract from the lessor tiers of income. Only the narrow thinking or the blinded by propaganda believe that some people believe the lessor tiers are negatively effected by the higher tiers.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...


If you don't think that is happening now it's because you haven't been looking or because you are among the fortunate exceptions.  

Wages in America have been stagnant for the past three decades and there is no sign of improvement in the future without radical Congressional intervention.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and you're full of shit.
> ...



ROFL!  That list is getting quite long, isn't it?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Jefferson was a wise man, but he's wrong about that.  The only legitimate function of government is to protect you from predators, foreign and domestic.  Finding happiness is y our job, not the government's.


----------



## 1776 (Jul 20, 2014)

A dumbfuck socialist (college student) living in Prague but from Ireland tried to debate economics with me at a Irish pub a few years ago.

He couldn't explain why the USSR failed, he blamed the UK and US not doing open trade with the USSR for their collapse....fucking insane.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I sort of get the safety net argument, the notion that we have a moral responsibility to care for those who fall through the cracks. I'd still argue that government isn't the right tool for that job, but at least the idea has merit. But I don't really see moral justification for taking money away from people simply because you think they've accumulated too much. Can someone here advocating "wealth redistribution" address that?
> ...



How can you remember something that never happened?  The standard of living for the average American was far above what his counterpart in Europe enjoyed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



None of them have even tried.


----------



## Sallow (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's not what the United States Constitution says or implies either implicitly or explicitly at all.

And it seems you have an rather large issue with one of the major founders of America.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > How about if we make everybody pay the exact same tax rate (percentage) and see what happens.
> ...



How is taking something from you that you have earned not fucking you over?  I'm dying to know that.



MikeK said:


> If you earn $20,000 a year a 20% flat tax rate will reduce your income to the poverty level.  But someone who "earns" $10,000,000 a year will still be sitting on eight million dollars.



so someone who was slightly above the poverty level is now slightly below the poverty level.  What makes this "poverty level," which is an arbitrary number conjured up by government bureaucrats, so magic?



MikeK said:


> This is America.  Not Saudi Arabia.  If the Founders of this Great Experiment could have anticipated the kind of wealth its economy would generate do you doubt they would have included provisions in its Constitution to prevent such exploitative inequity -- especially considering how it operates to negatively affect the Nation's integrity and stability?



We can all speculate forever about how the Founding Fathers would view the situation.  And the phrase "exploitive inequality" is utterly meaningless.  It's a term of propaganda.  The bottom line is that the Founding Fathers did not include such provisions in the Constitution, so all your speculation is utterly pointless.



MikeK said:


> The super-rich of this Nation have accumulated their fortunes by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation.



Wrong.  They made it by producing goods and services and trading them for cash.  Nothing they consumed belonged to "this" nation that the government didn't receive compensation for. 



MikeK said:


> They owe this Nation an equitable return in terms of a tax level which will serve the interests of the Whole, not just a One Percent segment.



So, they owe the government money for not being rapped as badly as they could have been raped?   That's the logic of a thug.



MikeK said:


> As a shorthand reference, keep in mind that during the most prosperous and productive decades in American history, the 40s to the 80s, there was a *91%* progressive tax rate.  And America was strong!



Those weren't the most prosperous decades in American history.  What about the 1920s?
1840s, 1850s, 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s?  On the other hand, we had a tax rate above 90% for most of the 1930s.

The empirical evidence doesn't support your theory.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> It's called PROGRESSIVE TAXATION!!! ]


With which I agree.]





> Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent
> 
> Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. *The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.
> *
> ...


BTW, I notice you are using a left wing propaganda site in a failed effort to "prove your point". I am a liberal but not a left winger. You have done what many other thoughtless people have done. You have used a chart which includes "payroll taxes," which are not really taxes. They are INSURANCE PREMIUMS INSTITUTED BY THE LEFT WING FAVORITE FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT. Would you like to cancel Social Security? If not, then try to understand what is factual. Having said that, I would like to see the caps on the income from which FICA premiums are collected removed.

One other issue, JFK intelligently lowered the top marginal bracket taxes by 21% and lowered corporate taxes, BOTH OF WHICH DID IN FACT IMPROVED OUR ECONOMY. Your attempt to propagandize an issue which has many variables is noted.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Yet since wealth is not a zero sum figure, The 20% DOES NOT DETRACT $.05 FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY.


If you really believe that you have been effectively brainwashed by the millionaire propagandists who serve the interests of the One Percent.

Fiat wealth appears to be infinite -- until the bubble bursts.

Real wealth is finite.  It represents the material, administrative, and the human (citizen) resources of this Nation.  To suggest these resources are limitless is plainly ignorant.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.
> ...



Don't you mean how did it work out for Bawney Fwank and Christopher "Countrywide" Dodd?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Actually, it pretty much does say that, but when did the Constitution become the ultimate authority on the purpose of government?


----------



## regent (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The Declaration has the "pursuit of happiness" as one of the purposes of government, but then as I keep saying the Declaration was a form of propaganda.


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Largely, yes. But that wasn't my point. Your response was irrelevant to my question, and the topic of the thread - i.e. a moral justification for redistributing wealth.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Absolutely incorrect.  It is not the Government's role to "pursue happiness".

The pursuit of happiness is an alienable right belonging to all men.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

To secure (i.e., protect) these rights is the role of Government.


----------



## initforme (Jul 20, 2014)

Morality and capitalism cannot work together.  Never have.  The words pursuit of happiness should not be taken all that seriously.   Its a dog eat dog throw your neighbor under the bus society.  That's the way it has always been.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


I have a couple of questions. If before the 89% increase in earnings between 2003 and 2007 Exxons net profits were 2% It appears that their new net profits after the 89% increase is still only 3.78% and it is still below the propaganda sites net profits. 100% of nothing is still nothing. The "know nothing about economics" crowd get my goat  because they throw out meaningless stats and don't understand the significance of either.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > "Concept of morality" ?
> ...


Yep! And the inequality of income has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



*Wages in America have been stagnant for the past three decades *

Keep letting in millions of illegals to compete with our unskilled workers, what do you think would happen to low end wages?


----------



## initforme (Jul 20, 2014)

Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down.  Right?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

initforme said:


> Morality and capitalism cannot work together.  Never have.  The words pursuit of happiness should not be taken all that seriously.   Its a dog eat dog throw your neighbor under the bus society.  That's the way it has always been.




Oh blah blah blah.

Capitalism is the most moral way to organize an economy.   It involves the VOLUNTARY exchange of value for value.  Yes, there will always be fraudsters and criminals, but they are outliers who will exist in any system.  At least in a free market, the Fraudsters & Criminals cannot use the government to mug their victims, as they do in Statist societies.

And don't bother throwing up the usual Prog Pablum about Wall Street etc.   We no longer have a free market economy in the U.S.; we have Big Goverment Cronyism in which lobbying and regulatory capture enable Mega Institutions to rent seek taxpayer dollars.

That Is Not Capitalism.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
> ...


By making good choices. By learning a good skill, or getting a good education, by motivation, ambition and incentive.





> When we consider the emergence of the 1% vs the 99% within the past three decades of "Reaganomics," would you argue the concept of morality does not arise?


Absolutely! Reaganomics did not cause anyone to reject education or learning skills, or cause low motivation, ambition or incentive. We live in a democracy in which people have the right to succeed or the right to fail, and it seems too many people choose the latter.





> For one thing, consider one's motivation to acquire that much money.  How would you define it?


Good sense and good choices. Of course their are always some who cannot, that is why we spend $500 billion of safety nets every year.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

initforme said:


> Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down.  Right?



Sounds good.

Make E-Verify mandatory.

Don't fine employers for firing (or not hiring) illegals.

Wages for unskilled Americans will rise.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


 I hope that one day you at least try to understand economics. 





> I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.


Wrong! If you earn $1 million it is paid to you from those for which you worked, or through investments you made by improving the productivity of the investment you chose to make. YOU DID NOT TAK THAT MONEY FROM ANYONE. INCOME IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. Increased productivity creates wealth and your investment contributed to that increased productivity.





> *These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.*


You did not get their money. You earned money for your contribution to productivity which increased wealth by the amount of your production. 





> They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.


Bullshit! The rich earning honest money has taken nothing from the less wealthy. Your ignorance of economics is showing. 





> Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


More bullshit, spread by people who don't understand economics.





> Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.


As a liberal (who happens to have an MBA with a major in Economics) I despise the RW pundits as much as I despise the left wing extremist pundits who put out the drivel you are preaching.





> If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front endwhen income is divided up, and the back endwhen it is spent.


 Unholy horseshit

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

*     There is only so much corporate income in a given year. *[/quote]Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.





> *The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes*. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.


Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.





> The Zero-sum Nature of economics
> 
> %er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution
> 
> Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. *Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism * often called trickle-down economics  saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying *These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.*


You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.


----------



## initforme (Jul 20, 2014)

"Oh blah blah blah.

Capitalism is the most moral way to organize an economy. It involves the VOLUNTARY exchange of value for value. Yes, there will always be fraudsters and criminals, but they are outliers who will exist in any system. At least in a free market, the Fraudsters & Criminals cannot use the government to mug their victims, as they do in Statist societies.

And don't bother throwing up the usual Prog Pablum about Wall Street etc. We no longer have a free market economy in the U.S.; we have Big Goverment Cronyism in which lobbying and regulatory capture enable Mega Institutions to rent seek taxpayer dollars.

That Is Not Capitalism

I agree.  Letting corporations run amok is not capitalism.  As far as regulations... don't touch my clean air or water... if you do... the company should be SHUT DOWN.  Yes... shut down.  Costs zero to have clean air and water.  ZERO.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...


OK, you gave us some statistics. Do you understand what they mean? If you did, you wouldn't be making such ignorant noises. Money spent to make money is deductible. When there is no net profits, THERE ARE NO TAXES. Royalties paid to produce are part of the costs of production and are reasonably deductible. Can you understand that simple truism? Instead of believing the propaganda of sites which tell you only part of the truth, you should research the why those statistics are what they are. You haven't, you just repeated left wing extreme propaganda.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

initforme said:


> "Oh blah blah blah.
> 
> Capitalism is the most moral way to organize an economy. It involves the VOLUNTARY exchange of value for value. Yes, there will always be fraudsters and criminals, but they are outliers who will exist in any system. At least in a free market, the Fraudsters & Criminals cannot use the government to mug their victims, as they do in Statist societies.
> 
> ...




Clearly, your reading comprehension is a faulty as your ability to use the quote feature.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > ...and you're full of shit.
> ...



Federal income taxes are progressive. Most state income taxes are progressive. Only sales taxes are regressive and I believe they should be tax neutrally transferred to progressive income tax. FICA collections are actually premiums, and unless you want to eliminate FDR's social security program I would think we should keep them.

It is obvious you know nothing about economics, taxation, wage determination and wealth. So why should I bother? I doubt you have learned anything today.

BTW, I am Dad to 6 grandfather to 14 and great grandfather to 7. Of my children, 3 have retired, 1 has chosen a 2nd career, and 1 has his own business, one will retire with almost $100K a year in December, and the other (my baby girl of 49) is doing well with her husband who is also retired.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thanks to progressive policies, conservative policies ONLY benefit the 1%ers  

But you don't remember America BEFORE the progressive period? Where almost all the gains were TAKEN by a few at the top? Oh right, being your usual conservative willful ignorant!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...



* You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk*

One policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck.....there will always be rich/ruling class.
> ...


Having lived in Europe for 16 years I can attest to the fact that you are wrong about European upward mobility. Europe has more social programs which "elevate the living conditions of all the citizens" but only in the context of high taxes to level out the entire society of the welfare states. Again, as someone else pointed out, you are surfing propaganda sites and have the audacity to believe their crap.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm college educated on the subject, you're a kook that surfs kook websites that create your false reality, then you come here spewing your bullshit like we are impressed with your GED.
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



*"This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil."*




The *Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers.* This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:

    Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. T*he rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.*

     *oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty).* Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.


With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks | Center for American Progress


*HONESTY, TRY IT BUBBA! *


Foreign Governments have changed the term Royalty to Income Tax.


https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3704


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


>


All that shows is that some people made better choices, got better job training, had more motivation, ambition and incentive, in addition to being willing to take risks of investment. The fortune 400 had a 98% turn over in a decade. The money was not inherited or given to them. THEY EARNED IT WITHOUT TAKING A PENNY FROM THE LESS FORTUNATE LIKE YOU.

BTW, had you looked a little further you would have found out, IT ISN'T THE 1%, it is really the .01% which skews the 1% and makes it clear they account for a very small % of our total population, and they never took anything from you.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...





Got it, that scientific stuff with data and all doesn't matter in right wing world, you 'feel' there is more upward mobility in the US than elsewhere, damn those statisticians!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Weird, 1945-1980 the top 1% ONLY had 6%-9% of ALL US income. By 2007 they TOOK 23%.  Were those guys pre Reaganomics lazy? Under ecucated? Made bad choices? 

Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.



*The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.*

John Kenneth Galbraith


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




What this also shows is the effect of the government moving off the gold standard, printing money, and spurring inflation.   Increased money supply seeks assets; so those who have assets are going to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Want more equality?   Get rid of government interference in the economy, get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of Too Big Too Fail.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...




lol, 7 YEARS LATER? Grow a brain, get honest, ONCE?

Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.





> *The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes*. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.


Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.





> The Zero-sum Nature of economics
> 
> %er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution
> 
> Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. *Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism * often called trickle-down economics  saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying *These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.*


You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.[/QUOTE]

LBJ (JFK) used DEMAND SIDE NOT trickle down. Get honest

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. *A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. *Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. *Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.*


JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...



if they did where in Constitution did they tell us that?? Isn't thinking fun?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...


Have you any idea why some states get more in tax money than others? I lived in Louisiana, and observed the welfare habituation the Federal government forced on the state. In 1950 the state received very little federal aid except for US Hwy construction and repair, yet the state gave the elderly an "old age pension," was the first state from way back to have free text books for the schools and the first to have free school lunches for anyone who wished to eat them WITHOUT INCOME TESTING. The federal government is seriously to blame for the welfare problems in Louisiana and in many other states as well, and all because of the "tyranny of the majority" which forced it on those states.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


Corporate income is determined by demand for the products and services they produce. It is not finite and can go up or down as proved by variations in business cycles.





> *The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes*. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.


Wow, and I thought you were just ignorant of economics. Obviously you don't understand anything about Corporate success. After I finished my MBA I went on to get an Ed.S in psychology, because human behavior is the basis upon which good economics are determined. I spent almost 20 years as a consultant to businesses both as an employee of a consulting company and then as my own business. My specialty was working with management to ensure happy employees, which meant wage, benefit and conditions of employment. Paying more money to create happy employees increases profit, contrary to the left wing propaganda that low wages make more profit. It is gained primarily by worker retention and productivity. If anyone tells you different, laugh in his face because he is an economic illiterate.





> The Zero-sum Nature of economics
> 
> %er Warns Fellow Plutocrats Neoliberalism Will Lead to Violent Class Revolution
> 
> Though Charles and David Koch may be grabbing the headlines promoting a 1% neo-feudal agenda, not everyone in the upper echelons of the American plutocracy is on board. *Nick Hanauer, a super rich venture capitalist, recently wrote a piece condemning neoliberalism * often called trickle-down economics  saying the current economic system is not only unfair and causing resentment but counter-productive to a thriving middle class saying *These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base.*


You need to get a new source of propaganda because the ones you use are lying to you. The fact is, ALL WAGES ARE TRICKLE DOWN. Unless you own your own business you get "trickle down" income. Who was the modern believer in Supply Side (trickle down) economics? It was JFK, who by reducing the top bracket marginal rates by 21% and reducing corporate taxes successfully brought our economy out of a recession. (He died before his proposals went into effect, but LBJ made in happen in the tax legislation of 1964. You really should try to learn that of which you speak because it shows your lack of knowledge of the events. The links were of no value to anyone, left or right.[/QUOTE]

So you DON'T address the zero sum nature of wealth (Corp) instead you blather on about nonsense./ Got it


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.
> ...


*jfk 1964!*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Founders WANTED Gov't involved in the economy...
> ...



MANY things aren't in there. Is 'free markets or capitalism'?


*(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics*


*When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. *  Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

* protecting industry through selective high tariffs *(especially 18611932) and through subsidies (especially 193270)

* government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

    a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.
*


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.



 The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, *was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny
*

American School of Economics

American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...



Show me Bubba?* NONE in the past 50 years have right? *


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




I call shenanigans.

Please provide valid evidence that the Founders wanted the government to interfere in the economy (pick winners and losers).

And as for growing a brain for once, you should follow your own advice.


----------



## rdean (Jul 20, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I think if they don't support the country where they were able to make that money, they should go to another country where their greed is more welcome. 

The Bush tax cuts were the greatest redistribution of wealth in history.  From the middle class to the top 1%.

254 counties where food stamp usage doubled from 2007 to 2011, 213 voted for Mitt Romney, a pioneer of outsourcing.  I wonder how many of those who lost their jobs, lost them when Mitt's company moved the jobs to China?  Lucky that Mitt owed nothing to the people who helped him get $250,000,000.00 and $100,000,000.00 for each of his five sons.  By the way, Mitt strongly supported the Iraq war.  All five of his sons were in their 20's when the war started and not one, not a single one enlisted.  He said they were already doing something important.  Helping him get elected president.

And the Republican base supports that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton,



actually Hamilton was a Federalist. When Jefferson heard about his thinking he organized the Republican party to defeat them. They were never heard from again until the liberals began to spy for Stalin's big liberal govt i nthe 1930's.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...



Barney? Minority member of the GOP House 1995- Jan 2007? PLEASE tell me the super powers he had?



*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

    Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
    ...

    Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

    (APPLAUSE)

* Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." *



June 17, 2004


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday. 


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton,
> ...



You mean the guys who gave US the US Constitution? Or the guy (TJ) who without Congress doubled the US size?


----------



## rdean (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...



And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower.  What was the tax rate then?

Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero.  Then you need another trick.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*




actually right wingers don't claim Bush because he was not a right winger. Why not grow up?
You do little  more than lie when you say Bush was a right winger.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



*(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics*



*When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world.*   Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

* protecting industry through selective high tariffs *(especially 18611932) and through subsidies (especially 193270)

*  government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)*

* a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation*



*Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.*



 The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. *The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny*



American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!


*WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY.* The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were  not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.





> The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the *450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth.*


Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.





> In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."
> 
> 
> *WHICH SIDE ENDED UP BEING CORRECT? LOL*


In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.





> Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> * You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk*


Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

rdean said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dad2three said:
> ...




That is such a bogus argument.

We've had 60 years of inflation eroding incomes since the 1950s.  The high tax rates in that era were offset by more deductions.   We didn't have the AMT.  And most importantly of all, most of the developed world was reduced to rubble in WWII, with the exception of the U.S.  We had very little competition in the world economy, which fueled a great deal of economic growth...benefiting those who wished to work.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> ...



Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960.  WHY ALL THOSE GOOD YEARS UNTIL CONSERVATIVE POLICIES?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



dear, he was not a right winger whenever he supported liberal intervention. Do you understand now? How slow are you?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


The founders thoughts about a modern economy as we have today are completely irrelevant. As it is, the US economy has lifted more people out of poverty into relative prosperity (compared to the whole of the rest of the world), which is something the founders could not even imagine.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol




*You can not say that socialism/fascism create jobs. Show me when/where it has worked and then we' talk.*

.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


They are part of the cost of doing business and are bona fide deductions.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!
> ...




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


*The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets*

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



LOL

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
*Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.*
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


CARTER? CLINTON HUH?





















Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

*The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.*











Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.




*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.*


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...


Some people can't stand disagreement with their precious positions. I looked at his link. It looked like left wing extreme propaganda to me.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!
> ...



"In fact neither was correct. *The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy* and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts."

LOL,

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion

Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post




* August 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending the tax cuts for the 2011-2020 time period would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...


All of the proposed "flat tax" concepts put forth by politicians exempt those at or  near the poverty level. Taking $2 million from a rich man seems a little excessive.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,



hate to rock your world but effective rate was 0% since taxes are like any other cost and so are passed on to consumers. We have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals who lack the IQ to understand.

Imagine that!!!! Liberal Marxists  are so proud of the corporate tax to punish business without knowing they are paying the tax in higher prices. It is very very unbelievable isn't it?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

MikeK said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Yet since wealth is not a zero sum figure, The 20% DOES NOT DETRACT $.05 FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY.
> ...


Nope! As a business consultant with an MBA with a major in economics I came to that conclusion on  my own. In researching the issue with other economists and their studies it was determined that my conclusion was correct.





> Fiat wealth appears to be infinite -- until the bubble bursts.


Wealth is not a zero sum issue as increased production increases total wealth.





> Real wealth is finite.  It represents the material, administrative, and the human (citizen) resources of this Nation.  To suggest these resources are limitless is plainly ignorant.


The wealth in one second of time can be deemed finite. In the next instant in time it may grow or decrease, depending on the business cycle. I have not suggested our physical resources are infinite, but their VALUE DEFINITELY INCREASES DEPENDING ON HOW WE EXPLOIT THOSE PHYSICAL RESOURCES. In so far as human resources are concerned, that is based on the total production of those human resources plus the improved production of automation. It is ignorant to believe otherwise or listen to the left wing extremist propaganda which tries to convince the sheeple that the rich are taking away part of the wealth they are due.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


We all have the pursuit of happiness as a right. What we do with that right is our own responsibility. (given there are people who can't)


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2014)

If people were intellectually honest they wouldn't look at the misleading concept of tax RATES but rather would look at the amount of tax that is actually paid.  What difference do the rates make if the tax rate for the poor is 90% and the tax rate for the rich is 10% if the tax code is structured for the poor to pay nothing and the rich to pay everything regardless of what the rates actually are? 

 That 90% tax rate on the rich the left is so gung ho to promote did not come anywhere close to what the rich actually paid, and in those years the less rich were paying a whole lot more and there was much more parity in the actual burden assessed on the individuals and commerce and industry.

The so-called tax breaks for the rich the left is so fond of criticizing in the Bush administration resulted in the rich paying substantially more taxes than they had been paying and a substantially higher percentage of all taxes paid.  But because the rate is lower, the left went into a state of apoplexy and rage we have come to expect.

Is the class envy so strong that if a rich man is taxed at 10% and pays $1 million in taxes, and you raise his rate to 90% with the result, after he moves and shelters most of his income, that he pays $500,000 in taxes, that you still feel righteous?  I am beginning to think the math deficiency produced in our schools is worse than I thought.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


I have given you a positive example several times now. *     JFK's TAX CUTS OF 21% OFF THE TOP BRACKET, 5% OFF THE BOTTOM BRACKET AND REDUCTION IN CORPORATE TAXES. Can you read?
*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



CORRECT, BUT not a deductible TAX which is what the problem is!!!!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*NOW LINK TO THOSE 'JOBS' CREATED? By DEMAND SIDE tax cuts!*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> ]ALL COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS SHOULD BE DEDUCABLE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY CALL IT, HONESTLY!



they really are anyway. If they are not deductible as a cost a corp will merely raise prices.

Corporations are tax collectors, not tax payers.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Are you really that stupid? Any time the tax cuts are of a greater rate at the top than at the bottom IT IS SUPPLY SIDE. Pure economic theory.  





> JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.


I am not a supply sider. I believe that both demand and supply side economics work based on the business cycle.





> But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.


And you believe that lying sack of shit? Bwa ha ha ha!





> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. *A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. *Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. *Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.*
> 
> 
> JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.


One more piece of left wing extremist propaganda. At least TRY to understand a little about economics.


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. *also called trickle-down economics.*



Read more: What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. Over time, the boost to economic growth will generate a larger tax base, which will make up for the revenue lost from the tax cut.

What is supply-side economics? Definition and meaning

supply-side economics

definition

An economic theory that holds that creating a positive investment environment by reducing taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals will stimulate job creation and economic opportunity at all levels. Also known as trickle-down economics.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> If people were intellectually honest they wouldn't look at the misleading concept of tax RATES but rather would look at the amount of tax that is actually paid.  What difference do the rates make if the tax rate for the poor is 90% and the tax rate for the rich is 10% if the tax code is structured for the poor to pay nothing and the rich to pay everything regardless of what the rates actually are?
> 
> That 90% tax rate on the rich the left is so gung ho to promote did not come anywhere close to what the rich actually paid, and in those years the less rich were paying a whole lot more and there was much more parity in the actual burden assessed on the individuals and commerce and industry.
> 
> ...





*Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP*


As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, *the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. *

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)




*Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says*


Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country


The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html



*Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans*


The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years  for a total of more than $1 million over this period.


*The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.*

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


Heres the legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts.

1. Drove the deficit








2. Fueled income inequality








*3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class*. Heres a chart, based on data from the Tax Policy Center, showing the distributional breakdown of the Bush tax cuts before they were amended on Tuesday. Going forward, the top 1 percent of earners will benefit much less -- though still quite a bit.









The legacy of the Bush tax cuts, in four charts - The Washington Post


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


Are you really that stupid? Any time the tax cuts are of a greater rate at the top than at the bottom IT IS SUPPLY SIDE. Pure economic theory.  





> JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.


I am not a supply sider. I believe that both demand and supply side economics work based on the business cycle.





> But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.


And you believe that lying sack of shit? Bwa ha ha ha!





> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. *A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. *Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. *Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.*
> 
> 
> JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.


One more piece of left wing extremist propaganda. At least TRY to understand a little about economics.


supply-side economics
Definition

An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. *also called trickle-down economics.*



Read more: What is Supply-side Economics? definition and meaning

What Is Supply-side Economics?:

Supply-side economics, also known as trickle-down economics, is an economic theory that states that a reduction in taxes will stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. Over time, the boost to economic growth will generate a larger tax base, which will make up for the revenue lost from the tax cut.

What is supply-side economics? Definition and meaning

supply-side economics

definition

An economic theory that holds that creating a positive investment environment by reducing taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals will stimulate job creation and economic opportunity at all levels. Also known as trickle-down economics.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]



*Got it, NOT what LBJ's tax cuts did. Thanks*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> If people were intellectually honest they wouldn't look at the misleading concept of tax RATES but rather would look at the amount of tax that is actually paid.  What difference do the rates make if the tax rate for the poor is 90% and the tax rate for the rich is 10% if the tax code is structured for the poor to pay nothing and the rich to pay everything regardless of what the rates actually are?
> 
> That 90% tax rate on the rich the left is so gung ho to promote did not come anywhere close to what the rich actually paid, and in those years the less rich were paying a whole lot more and there was much more parity in the actual burden assessed on the individuals and commerce and industry.
> 
> ...



*Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory*


The conclusion?

*Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth.*

This paragraph from the report says it all

The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. *However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.*

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Doesn't seem like anyone is interested in the moral justifications, despite the claimed topic of the thread.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Got it, AGAIN you'll not argue the posit, but instead go off on a tangent

*Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game*

     Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

* If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. *As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front endwhen income is divided up, and the back endwhen it is spent.

T*he Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

     There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, zero-sum.*

     So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workersthe ones who created the wealth to begin withinvestors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

*     To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get richthat is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countriesconsider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. Its no mystery, and it isnt all that hard to do.*

     Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

    Gates: Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of todayI can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. Its a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.

    Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?

    Gates: Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretariesthose who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

    Heres another wrinkle youll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, theyll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 yearsand with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

    Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries asses off, and you dont have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics


----------



## Sallow (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Mainly because the vast majority of the uber wealthy haven't earned it.

Additionally when wealth translates into power? Concentrating it in to the hands of the very few is a ridiculously bad idea.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,
> ...



Yeah, sure, tax burdens NEVER fall to owners of Corps as ECONOMISTS say right? lol


----------



## Bush92 (Jul 20, 2014)

Your $$$$, spend it how you want. I have nothing against wealthy people. They earned it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Doesn't seem like anyone is interested in the moral justifications, despite the claimed topic of the thread.



Libturds like Dad2Three certainly aren't interested in providing a moral justification for their schemes to plunder the money people have earned.  That's because they know there is no moral justification.  Plain greed in envy is the motivation.  There's no way to put a sugar coating on that.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, right, he wasn't a right winger from about 2007 on in conservatives 'world'... lol
> ...



False premises, distortions and LIES the ONLY thing right wingers EVER have. I'm shocked


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Apparently the gods took pity on Dad2three and gave him one talent:  to mindlessly google up Prog propaganda.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't seem like anyone is interested in the moral justifications, despite the claimed topic of the thread.
> ...




What the hell do you think a tax is?

WALTON FAMILY IS WORTH AS MUCH AS THE BOTTOM 40% OF US. Earned? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Oh like the unanimous GOP supporting his ADDI (dream down payment) program in 2003? Or supporting gov't backing of zero down loans? 


GOP had zero conservatives? lol


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Explain to me you retarded son of bitch why Cubans will come to the USA on anything that floats.

.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And for 30+ years conservative policy (trickle down, 'free trade', etc) has shifted income from the poor and middle class to the 'job creators (Chinese) "


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Tell me why Calif has the most millionaires AND billionaire and the highest taxes on the 'job creators'?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 20, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I think the problem with your argument is how you are framing it.  

Wealth is not currently distributed according to the effort to produce it. 

The Top 20% of the country control 87% of the wealth.  The top 1% control 43% of the wealth.  The top 400 people control more wealth than the bottom half of the nation. 

So it's not so much "redistribution" than "proper distribution".  

I will go a step further.  I actually agree with the right wing when they say that government dependence is a bad thing. But you can't have WalMart (owned by some of the richest people in the country) paying their employees so little they have to go on food stamps, and then complain about "Dependency".  It strikes me these folks are willing to do some of the hard work.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Because Jerry and the marxists live there and parasites constitute 47-50% of the electorate.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> [
> 
> 
> It's called PROGRESSIVE TAXATION!!!
> ...



Awesome Charts


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Do you know the difference between income and wealth?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

If the Progs in this thread could read for comprehension and retention, the might learn something from this:

_A Tax Fable

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to PJ's for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.  

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now lunch for the 10 would costs only $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings between the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? 

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be only fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount that each paid and he started to work out the amounts each should pay. 

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.  

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" 

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks." 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."  

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next day he didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They were $52 short! 

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean. _

A Tax Fable


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Weird, conservative theory says those guys should be in Texas? What happened?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Texas is gaining on California.

_California cities once led the nation in urban population growth, but sharp declines in migration and birthrates have slowed the state's human expansion to well under 1 percent a year, a third of what was happening during the go-go 1980s.

Now, a new Census Bureau report indicates, rapid growth &#8211; for better or worse &#8211; has shifted to other states.

The nation's five fastest growing cities over 50,000 population in the year ending July 1, 2013, were in Texas and Utah and Texas also had four other cities in the top 15.

San Marcos, Texas, led the nation in municipal growth at 8 percent during the year, followed by Frisco City, Texas, a suburb of Dallas.

The Dallas suburbs have become a major destination for movement of corporate headquarters, including, it was announced recently, Toyota's U.S. headquarters from Southern California. Smaller Texas cities, meanwhile, are enjoying an oil boom...._

Capitol Alert: High population growth shifts from California to other states


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Sure, 1945-1980 the top 1% received 6%-9% of the INCOME by 2007 they TOOK 23% of the pie. See?

*80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.*

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 20, 2014)

Gee, the middle class has been eviscerated as Government has gotten Bigger and Bigger.

The connection will elude you, no doubt.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Texas is gaining on California.
> 
> _California cities once led the nation in urban population growth, but sharp declines in migration and birthrates have slowed the state's human expansion to well under 1 percent a year, a third of what was happening during the go-go 1980s.
> 
> ...





Sure, low paying jobs where the burden is shifted to those that can least afford it! Conservatives paradise. Weird how Cali has so many millionaires and billionaires right?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Gee, the middle class has been eviscerated as Government has gotten Bigger and Bigger.
> 
> The connection will elude you, no doubt.



Sure that's what it was *shaking head*

*  Reaganomics killed Americas middle class*

This country's fate was sealed when our government slashed taxes on the rich back in 1980 


*Theres nothing normal about having a middle class. *Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and its a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generations middle class.


Reaganomics killed America?s middle class - Salon.com



Third World countries. One of the things they all had in common was a small, very rich elite, small middle class, and a large lower class. They also shared very low economic growth as a result. This has been known for at least 50 years. The US has been going in this direction for at least the last 30 years as we have gradually de-industrialized and government policies (such as trickle down economics, 'free trade', etc ) have promoted the shift of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the economic elite


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Because the climate and natural beauty of California make it the most desirable place to live in the U.S.  millionaires and billionaires can afford to live wherever they want to live.  Cost isn't an obstacle.  It's the middle class that can't afford California any longer.  And businesses can't afford it either.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

boedicca said:


> If the Progs in this thread could read for comprehension and retention, the might learn something from this:
> 
> _A Tax Fable
> 
> ...



*A FABLE*. Please pull a Galt, pretty please? lol


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, the middle class has been eviscerated as Government has gotten Bigger and Bigger.
> ...



Salon ????


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Partially true, weird how Texas taxes the working MUCH more than Cali right?

And Biz AREN'T fleeing my wonderful state, despite decades of right wing myths saying they are


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Listening said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Ad hom? You can't actually use reason and logic? Oh right, a conservative...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



*Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game*

That's why wealth never increases. Oh, wait.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Of the most current Forbes 400, which ones haven't earned it?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Come on shitstain, let's compare private ownership of homes and automobiles....that is an economic sign of upward mobility.
> ...



*It's not a secrete.  It's not a mystery.  The facts from the 60's, the 80's and the 90's, especially, are well known.  Indeed, the dynamics are intuitively self-evident.  I wouldn't waste my time showing jack to some jackass who denies the facts of economic realty, which he may readily confirm for himself, but for the fact that they don't jive with his mindless, willfully ignorant, zero-sum-gain ideology of tax and oppress.*

Carry on. . . .


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Reason and Logic...???? When discussing a Salon article that sets it's own standards and provides no data.

Oh, you are too too funny.


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The ones who don't support Shallow's poltical desires.


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thank you, seriously, for actually addressing the topic. This helps us to get somewhere.

For what it's worth, I agree with you - to an extent. I'm not sure it's a 'vast majority', or even a majority, but certainly some (too many, in any case) of the uber wealthy aren't honestly earning the wealth they acquire. And government _should_ put a stop to it. That's one of the most important functions of government. 

But simply assuming that everyone making a lot of money is cheating doesn't really make a lot of sense. Even if we ignore the basic injustice of guilty-until-proven-innocent thinking, it's just not smart. People who are earning lots of money honestly are providing us with things we want and need. We _want_ those people to have lots of economic power because they're doing good things with it.

If progressives want to do something about economic corruption, they'll find ready allies among libertarians and conservatives by going after collusion and fraud. Wouldn't that make more sense than indulging a stereotype that throws the baby out with the bathwater?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front endwhen income is divided up, and the back endwhen it is spent.
*
The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. Its as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less.* Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, zero-sum.*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset"


Lucky gene pool winners Walton's, Koch's , Coors, etc...

 Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


*If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 20, 2014)

There are anti-trust and RICO laws on the books that deal with those who are profiting unethically at the expense of others.   Building a better mousetrap that people want, however, and thereby making more money than all the other mousetrap manufacturers combined is NOT unethical.  The true free market capitalist understands this.  The statist does not.

The one thing I have never gotten any statist to explain to me is how he is entitled to a single penny of what I have earned when he did nothing to help earn it.  And that is the very heart and crux of the morality of wealth distribution.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




They haven't earned it?  Can you explain how they obtained their wealth if not by earning it?



Sallow said:


> Additionally when wealth translates into power? Concentrating it in to the hands of the very few is a ridiculously bad idea.



That isn't a moral justification, Swallow.   That's just you saying you don't like it.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > 1776 said:
> ...




lol, Right because IF a 'job creator' has more money from paying less taxes, they'll higher someone? NO demand doesn't drive it, lol

Myth #3: Lower taxes are the best way to grow the economy.

No one likes paying higher taxes. But do lower taxes actually spur economic growth? Bruce Bartlett, an economist in the Reagan administration, has compared tax rates in various rich countries in 1979 to each country's growth rate since then. His conclusion? *There's virtually no correlation. Recent US history backs this up too.  *







*Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory*



The conclusion?

*Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth.*


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The Koch's only inherited a few million.   They generated he remaining 99% of their wealth themselves.  The Walton heirs may not have earned the wealth they enjoy, but their father did.  Is it your position that people are not entitled to give their wealth to whomever they wish?

I also question your 40% figure.    How did you come up with that?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> There are anti-trust and RICO laws on the books that deal with those who are profiting unethically at the expense of others.   Building a better mousetrap that people want, however, and thereby making more money than all the other mousetrap manufacturers combined is NOT unethical.  The true free market capitalist understands this.  The statist does not.
> 
> The one thing I have never gotten any statist to explain to me is how he is entitled to a single penny of what I have earned when he did nothing to help earn it.  And that is the very heart and crux of the morality of wealth distribution.



Boy I WISH conservatives could get honest JUST ONCE


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

 "It is but equity...that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged."-Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 


* Free markets killed capitalism: Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Wal-Mart, Amazon and the 1 percents sick triumph over us all*

Monopoly: It sounds like a very old-fashioned problem. It sounds like an economic issue from the 19th century. Is it still a problem today?

Yes, absolutely, a huge problem. The American economy is more concentrated today than its been in more than a century, since the days of the plutocrats. Pretty much every sector of the economy is dominated by a few Goliaths, sometimes a single dominant corporation. And this poses immense economic and political dangers, to growth and the quality of our jobs, and to our democracy itself.

But to really understand what this means, lets start at the very beginning. 


Free markets killed capitalism: Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Wal-Mart, Amazon and the 1 percent?s sick triumph over us all - Salon.com
Monopoly is back: Barry Lynn on the concentration of American economic power -- and how we can restore fairness


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Thomas Piketty?   ROFL!  Sorry, but your source has no credibility whatsoever.  He's a communist.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



 The report, from the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy, says that 40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a sizeable asset from a spouse or family member.

Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely self-made. 

Did the Forbes 400 Billionaires Really 'Build That'?



*They inherited the predecessor to Koch Industries from their dad.*

GOT IT, YOU PREFER THE US BECOME AN ARISTOCRACY OVER A NATION BUILT ON MERIT!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...




Got it, YOU are a loon...


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



How can you come here to oppose wealth redistribution while the supporting the distribution of over 100 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars to the Jewish State in order to finance the Palestinian Holocaust?


How can you come here and oppose wealth redistribution while supporting the foreign policy conducted by the prostitutes inside the DC beltway?

How can you come here to oppose wealth redistribution while supporting US involvement in the middle east which have forced the motherfuckers to create such doozies as the TSA.

. .


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*What? Oh, you mean the Boston Tea Party.

Yeah, the Boston Tea Party. Everyone nowadays says it was a rebellion against taxation. But if you go back and read the actual writings of that moment, it was a very clearly a rebellion against the British East India company. Americans were terrified of the British East India Company.

Because it was a monopoly. They controlled the tea traffic.*

And people were afraid that they would leverage that monopoly to take over all kinds of other commerce here in America.

I wrote about that in the Wall Street Journal when our modern-day Tea Party movement was getting going, and pointed this out. But the response I would hear was that the British East India Company was a government monopoly, that it had been granted by the statewhich is true enough. And so the argument then is that, since monopolies are created by government, so we dont have to worry about the private sector, if we just hack down government, then we wont have a problem.

*Yeah, if you hack down government, then youll have government re-emerge, only the new government will be privately run.*

What do you mean?

*Well, lets look at the corporation Amazon. Amazon now essentially governs business within the book industry. Amazon has so much power that it virtually gets to tell really big companies like Hachette, the French publisher, what to do*. Youre gonna sell this book at this price. Youre gonna sell that book at that price. That means Amazon pretty much has the power to determine how many copies of a book a publisher might sell. Thats not citizens trading with one another in an open market setting those prices, thats a giant corporation setting those prices. Which means what we are witnessing in the U.S. book industry, I think, is a form of top-down government.

* . . . Then a corporation becomes government.*


Free markets killed capitalism: Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Wal-Mart, Amazon and the 1 percent?s sick triumph over us all - Salon.com


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



SOMALIA!!!

Grow up and grow a brain


*I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.*

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

*The rise of the heirs on the Forbes list signals a larger worry, however.  America may not be able to create new wealth the way it has for the past 20 years*.  All of the forces that drove billionaire creation  strong economic growth, a 20-year-bull market, huge technological change and investment  are weakening.  We will still create new billionaires, with the occasional Zuckerbergs keeping the flame alive.

*Yet preserved family wealth may well start eclipsing earned new wealth*.  Its possible that we could be heading into a period like the *1930s, 40s and 50s, when most of the large wealth in America came from one of two places  .oil and trust funds*

I hope Im wrong.

Are We Entering the Age of Inherited Wealth? - The Wealth Report - WSJ


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The phrase "a sizeable asset" id do vague and nebulous that it's meaningless.  If a man inherits $10,000, he has inherited a "sizable asset."  If he builds that $10,000 into a $10 billion dollar fortune, the "sizeable asset" is an insignificant contribution to his fortune.  



Dad2three said:


> Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely self-made.



It doesn't tell you how much total wealth was inherited and how much was created.  The last time I looked at the list, the number of self-made men was far higher than 70%.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Got it, You can't be honest/ I'm shocked, Shocked I tell you!


"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." - Adam Smith, *notable anti-capitalist*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Example- Romney 'self made' of course he was born on 3rd base right?


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 20, 2014)

both moral and patriotic:

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." 
-- *Thomas Jefferson*; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)


"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."
-- *James Madison*; from 'Parties' (1792)


----------



## dblack (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



What in the hell are you talking about? You have the singular ability to quote my posts, but respond with completely unrelated nonsense. Are you actually reading what I'm posting?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The bottom line is that Romney did not inherit any of his wealth.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Provide a detailed list of all the people who supposedly inherited all their wealth and we'll see.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. *

If Microsoft stock rises tomorrow and makes Bill Gates worth an extra $1 billion, who lost the billion?

*There is only so much corporate income in a given year. *

Why would you confuse wealth with income? Oh, right, you're not too bright.


----------



## Listening (Jul 20, 2014)

So what if they inherited it ?

It's funny the left would quote Jefferson when it suites their cause, but ignores "the 200 year old dead guys" when it does the same.

What pisses me off is the way the government protects the large corporations that got them the wealth in the first place.  Economics teaches you that if someone is getting wealthy, others will jump in.  We'll they are not because they have huge barriers of entry to overcome created mostly by government.

And we want more of it.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dad2three said:
> ...


Again, *JFK 1964!*LBJ got JFK's proposal passed. Anytime you cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich it is supply side economics. Economics 1 (which came before 101 as any fool with a brain knows.)


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Got it, YOU don't even know what you posited

"But simply assuming that everyone making a lot of money is cheating doesn't really make a lot of sense. Even if we ignore the basic injustice of guilty-until-proven-innocent thinking, it's just not smart. *People who are earning lots of money honestly are providing us with things we want and need. We want those people to have lots of economic power because they're doing good things with it.*"


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nope, just born on 3rd base and sold some stocks he had sitting around to go to college


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Weird, I posited something when questioned backed it up with a source

 YOU

*"The last time I looked at the list, the number of self-made men was far higher than 70%

Provide a detailed list of all the people who supposedly inherited all their wealth and we'll see."*


LOL


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got it, you want to throw crap rather than TRY to address the actual posit. I'm shocked

*If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing. *


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

rdean said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


So many mistakes it is hard to know where to start. Lots of us liberals supported that last issue, even if we didn't want Mitt to win. As a long time former soldier, please note, we don't resent those with reasonable choices. We have a volunteer military and most of us were not crazy about that bunch of draftees in VN. Bush lowered the top bracket by 4.9%, eliminated an entire of less wealthy from the tax roles. Only your propagandist knows the truth. In addition Mitt had left the company before the big move to China, which is really irrelevant because as per studies for every job off shored, 1.7 jobs were created in the US, and traditionally the jobs exported tended to be labor intensive low paying jobs and the jobs created were more complex and paid more. Of the few high paying jobs exported the people who lost jobs lost only 3% of their income as beginners in new firms in the same industry.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

The study found that offshoring tends to increase productivity and reduce costs, which can prompt firms to expand domestic hiring enough to offset the jobs lost to workers overseas.

"Offshoring has no effect on native employment in the aggregate," the authors said. "While o&#64256;shore workers compete directly with natives, their employment generates productivity gains that 'increase the size of the pie,' leading to an overall neutral impact on native employment."

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.​
Please note, the article was NOT written by a RW source.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*If I 'make' a million dollars,*

How did you make it? Be specific.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts and you want to argue the demand side tax cuts were really supply side? lol

Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a* demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy.* Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didnt have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. *The giveaway that Kennedy's wasnt really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top.* If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, youre better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, youre better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the topor, if thats politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board.

Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic

*Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;*

*And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage*


*Time has validated that stimulative approach, whereas recent history has largely discredited the competing notion that federal tax cuts on upper-end incomes really spur investment and create jobs.* Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, and a boom followed; George W. Bush lowered them substantially in 2001, and two million jobs were subsequently lost.

03.13.oleary



*The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter*


*Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president *(of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.


*The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962.*


Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. *Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian* belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. 

Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency.* The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.*

*Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong."* *That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics*,


The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


Clinton would like to erase his part in it too, as well as Carter. The CRA was Carter's millstone, but Clinton used it to start the housing price inflation in 1997. (What is good for the goose is good for the gander)


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

rdean said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dad2three said:
> ...


The economy sparkled under Eisenhower IN SPITE of the 90% top marginal rate. Spending after WWII was the cause of that. We were coming off a hugely patriotic period. Don't confuse the facts with your conjecture.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts *






Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


I hate to give a Republican credit, but Eisenhower was a great president for economics. How else could we have helped rebuild the destroyed continent of Europe?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


 Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies. 

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



*"Please note, the article was NOT written by a RW source."*

REALLY?



" London School of Economics Center for Economic Performance"



The CEP is an interdisciplinary research centre at the LSE Research Laboratory. It was established by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in 1990 and is now one of the leading economic research groups in Europe.

The CEP studies the determinants of economic performance at the level of the company, the nation and the global economy by focusing on the major links between globalisation, technology and institutions (above all the educational system and the labour market) and their impact on productivity, inequality, employment, stability and wellbeing. 

CEP | About Us

BUT NO, THEY DIDN'T SAY 1.7 JOBS FOR EVERY OFF-SHORED JOB EITHER

"More specifically, the researchers found that* increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. *

...*The paper also examined the impact of immigrants and found that immigration had an even more positive effect on jobs for native-born U.S. workers:* Every 1 percent increase in immigrant jobs boosted aggregate employment for American-born workers by 3.9 percent.

*How Immigrants Create More Jobs*, IS THE REAL STORY!!!


Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

"The study notes that when companies move production offshore, they pull away not only low-wage jobs but also many related jobs, which can include high-skilled managers, tech repairmen and others. But hiring immigrants even for low-wage jobs helps keep many kinds of jobs in the United States, the authors say. In fact, when immigration is rising as a share of employment in an economic sector, offshoring tends to be falling, and vice versa, the study found.

*In other words, immigrants may be competing more with offshored workers than with other laborers in America.'*



*Economic theory and past performance suggest that although offshoring provides overall economic gains, it is also redistributive, with affected workers facing the prospect of job loss and wage pressures. A powerful set of policy tools can help navigate the ups and downs of this new global force, but so far most have not been deployed.*


Services Offshoring, American Jobs, and the Global Economy | Brookings Institution


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Do you realize how stupid that statement was? There was a recession. There were also many deficits. In fact their have been deficits every fiscal year since Eisenhower. Apples and oranges....Recession and Deficits. Study economics, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*Got it, MORE ignorant shit from a right winger, shocking*

*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*



Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

*The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.*








A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States.* Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.*



Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. 


*The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.*







*Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom  Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill*




Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers  *competitors of Fannie and Freddie  grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006*



Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act  Source: McClatchy








The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earthThey were opposite of subprime.


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

INTEREST RATES?

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, *the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":*

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




*Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?*


 *after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around,* the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. 

*When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:*

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas



*Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.*


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Weird, and yet the CBO said almost* 1/3rd of the deficits *from 2001-2010 WERE attributable to Dubya's tax cuts for the rich. Go figure!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*"Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it?"*



Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers  competitors of Fannie and Freddie  grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


*...A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it. *


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


Allen Greenspan:

*"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.*

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > In 2010 Exxon Mobil paid a domestic federal income tax rate of just 17%,
> ...


Watch it big boy, I am a liberal, but I AM NOT A LEFT WINGER. I have never known a left winger who understands Tax Incidence. 

Definition of 'Tax Incidence'

An economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand. When supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers. If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax.

Tax Incidence Definition | Investopedia

Or:



Abstract

We introduce imperfect labor mobility into the corporate tax incidence analysis and demonstrate that for smaller values of the elasticity of labor mobility parameter the corporate income tax could reduce the relative income of corporate labor even when the taxed sector was capital intensive.​
In other words when you look at the first definition where it says, "If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax;" You then have to consider Capital Mobility. That is true because when the tax is imposed on the producer (capital)
then the ease of that capital moving must be considered.

We have seen this over the last 60 years. Two primary costs to Capital are Labor and Tax. At a certain point it is sometimes more profitable to move to reduce both of those expenses.

Left wingers don't want to here this economic truism.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Every dollar spent by the government must be paid for either by taxes or by more borrowing with greater debt. The only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. *An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer*."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It doesn't matter if it is a tax or a royalty. It is a cost factor, ALL of which are bona fide deductions.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *"This is because they took advantage of the federal subsidy that allows them to take foreign tax credits on royalties disguised as income taxes. These royalties are not taxes but are in exchange for the right to produce oil."*
> 
> The *Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for &#8220;modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers.&#8221;* This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:
> 
> ...



THEY WRITE IT OFF NOT AS AN EXPENSE, BUT A TAX, WHICH LOWERS THEIR US TAX BURDEN. Willful ignorant?[/QUOTE]It does not matter stupid. It is a cost of operation. Both are deductible at 100% ABOVE THE LINE. Do you understand what that means?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...





*"If "*

But yes, Exxon is going to stop pumping oil if they have to pay taxes *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


There were zero jobs created by demand side tax cuts inaugurated by JFK.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Gaaawwwwwdddd

Grow a brain

Tax deductions reduce taxable income

Tax credits directly reduce tax liability


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




Proof either way? lol


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *]The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie"*


You quoted it. It is correct. Because the reduction in the top tax rates are supply side economics. Nice of your to prove my point in a post to someone else.


----------



## Dante (Jul 20, 2014)

[MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]





Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



"are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth?"  The earned income tax credit and other things like it throughout the history of what we call 'capitalism' has been an acknowledgement that we live in a society as a group of individuals. Nothing exists in the vacuum libertarians and other kooks think it can or does. 

To "deny people" some sort of social welfare "support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society" does not rule out the kinds of support like earned income tax credits. 

see?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *]The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie"*
> ...



*You mean supply side tax cuts don't grow the pie? ANYONE with half a brain knows that Bubba! *


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Well then, maybe you are finally learning something. Now all you have to do is recognize that the definitions I submitted to you with links, proves that reducing corporate tax rates and top brackets more than lower brackets is a supply side tax cut, *JUST LIKE THE TAX CUT OF 1964 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY JFK WAS A SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUT.*

I grow tired of trying to educate you because you are simply can not be educated, you are as dumb as a post about economics. That is what listening to left wing extremist propaganda will do to you.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Ignorant tool. NOPE

it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. *A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity*. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, *but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.*

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dante said:


> [MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How does living in the same geographical area as someone else entitle them to anything I have earned?  I didn't agree to the EITC, so when did I "acknowledge" it?  That's just your weasel attempt to claim I agreed to it.    "Living in a vacuum" is a non sequitur.  Is that your way of claiming you're entitled to rob me?

I can't imagine any rationalizations lamer than yours.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > No it is not. so long as production can be increased wealth can be increased. I have never read or listened to the RW kook Rush Limbaugh. He is irrelevant drivel. But wealth is not a zero sum game and is not finite. Study a little economics instead of repeating left wing extremist bullshit.
> ...




RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




Keep being willfully ignorant of the context of the article wing nutter!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.
> ...



Do we have more wealth now than in the past or not?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 20, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Here's the thing.  I don't care what you believe.  It's no skin off my nose.  I know the difference between income and wealth.  You don't.  You think that the varying, naturally  occurring increases in wealth among the respective owners of the factors of production is . . . what? . . . evil?  That's nuts.  You think the market is a zero-sum-gain proposition, that wealth is a finite commodity.  That's nuts.  Hence, you're little pictures are not telling you what you think they are, and that's okay with me.  

Carry on. . . .


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




*There is only so much corporate income in a given year. *The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. *Its as simple as that.*


----------



## Dante (Jul 20, 2014)

[MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]





bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]
> ...



No one gets what you've earned. Our democratically elected, representative government gets to tax you. It's called 'the real world'

If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Yes, keep believing in your myths and fairy tales lol

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. *Its as simple as that.*


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

The Zero-sum Nature of economics


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 20, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Guess you are passing right by this post I destroyed your talking points on?

WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. One Dubya was head cheerleader for in the US and fought all 50 states who wanted to slow it down and ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004, actually gutting them by 1,800 agents in white collar instead!


----------



## MikeK (Jul 21, 2014)

initforme said:


> Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down.  Right?


Absolutely right!  

The problem is the ready availability of fake ID.  Anything from state driver licenses, birth and baptism certificates, to military separation papers can be bought in Tijuana or from dealers who the employers of illegals direct them to.  The quality ranges from poor to excellent but quality doesn't matter as long as the illegal has the documents when he's working in case the INS pulls a raid.  

This is the reason Congress has resisted passing a law requiring a biometric ID card which is registered and addressable (like credit cards) via swipe terminals carried by INS agents.  These addressable cards would be verifiable by fingerprint and/or iris reading.  It would take six months to complete a program requiring all citizens to have a card.  The cost could be offset by charging those above a given income level $10.  

Such a program, backed by a significant penalty for violations, would put an end to the hiring of illegals, the vast majority of whom would be forced to voluntarily go back to Mexico and Central America.  But our corrupted, corporatist Congress won't pass such a law.  In fact some of them discourage it by saying such a requirement is "un-American."


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 21, 2014)

I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.

The ceo is a fucking pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 21, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.
> 
> The ceo is a fucking pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.




So you'd like to see government wage controls.  How about price controls, too?  That will help us establish whether you are a true *Nixon* Republican!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

MikeK said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > Punish those that will hire illegals then... shut them down.  Right?
> ...



The government doesn't even enforce the laws on the books now when it knows illegals are working in this country.

Who do you think you're kidding?

All we need is a president willing to enforce the law.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



So, if you take a quantity, divide it into parts, the sum of the parts equals the whole.  That's all you've said.  Your term "zero sum" should be just "sum."  It doesn't mean anything.  We already know that wages plus other other costs plus profits equals revenues.  That's just basic accounting.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dante said:


> [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rape and murder are also part of the "real world."  The question is, how is it justified.  You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income.  Utter horseshit.  Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason.



Dante said:


> If you so hate the US Constitution try and convince others to amend it (good luck with an attitude like yours ) or move out of country like Rush and some whacko progressives have claimed they would do



It's funny how liberals can't have this discussion without coming off like a bunch of thugs.

You move out of the country, asshole.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



We're all happy that you're able to do sums.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> *So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts *
> 
> ...



Why don't you do an honest side by side comparison.  you start Obama off in his first year but you don't jump in on Ronnie Raygun until his second.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.
> 
> The ceo is a fucking pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.



you want violence, you want to open the door so govt can set all wages and prices. It ends in communism.

Also if you take Apple Ceo Tim Cook and divide his salary among Apple workers it comes to $84 a year!


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



It's not a bogus argument.  Those taxes paid for an interstate highway system.  For dams which provide power.  They paid to start NASA whose inventions and developed technology has infused billions into our economy and gave us the technological foundation to be the world leaders in technology.  Someone may have built the first personal computer in their garage, but without the chips and technology developed by NASA, that never would have happened.

And what are today's GOP alternatives?  Cut taxes?  Redistribute the wealth of the nation to the top 1% because they are the "job CREATORS"?  Let everything fall apart.  Bigger military?  Slash education?  

What?

Tell us, what?

Give us some examples of "think big".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

rdean said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



think big?? conservatives want freedom from liberal govt. That is what made America great not big govt projects. Do you understand that? Freedom produced millions of inventions few of which had anything to do with govt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Matthew said:


> I am ok with corporations but the worker deserves more of the profit.
> 
> The ceo is a fucking pig! Laws need to be put into place that limits them and helps the workers.



You need to start your own company and do that.

Fight the man!!!! Idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



See the words "Post Recession Growth"? LOL!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Maybe we should go back to the good old days when tax rates were high and the corporations save their tax money by reinvesting into their company instead of just pulling everything out.

The US corporate business model has changed: *It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management..* So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, Dubya/GOP put US in a much wider and deeper hole, and the GOP have worked since day 1 to make Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!



Of course thats 100% idiotic. Please name one liberal policy that would not makes things worse. How will you learn if you are afraid to try.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Obama a 1 termer and refuse to get out and help push the car out of the ditch they drove US into!!!!
> ...



Taxing the top 2% at higher rates. Simple.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



What rate?

Why would that make things better?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


The CBO may be correct. We were talking about THE RECESSION DUMBASS. DUBYA'S TAX CUTS DID NOT CAUSE THE RECESSION, THEY CAUSED THE DEFICITS. If you had red my comments you would know that; OR CAN YOU READ?

BTW, thanks for all the various graphs and charts about Sub Prime Loans. They further proved my point.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> ...





What's this got to do with Dubya's subprime crisis?

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was *triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007*.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking,  min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates


 Going to 45% top rate  for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year

Lowering the Corp tax rate (to 28%) and getting rid of loopholes, and using the extra revenues as Obama proposed, would fund infrastructure projects 

Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool that isn't honest. ONE MORE TIME

*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html



Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




*Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?*


 after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. 

*When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:*

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



its simple? well then why did you forget to explain how it would make things better??


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> ...



NOTHING ON YOUR FALSE PREMISE HUH:

"*Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it*? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies.

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?"



LOL

*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it. *

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. 


*The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

*
The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors *so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I did, sorry you are to willfully ignorant o see it!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RIght, so that's why we have the same amount of wealth now that we had 100 years ago . . . . . er, wait.
> ...


You know what? I resent your putting my name in a quote line of bullshit you posted. You are not just economics challenged, or stupid, you are a vicious insulting boob. Fix it!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*
> ...



*OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDNT REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?*

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

*A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.*



Q Why would Bushs regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his Ownership Society programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bushs regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
*Lowering down payment requirements to 0%*
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
*PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING*


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



actually stealing money at the point of a gun from our most productive citizens for govt to waste harms rather than helps the economy. Do you grasp the logic? THe more govt the more waste and the more crippled the private sector is by taxes. IF you tax venture capital you get fewer new ventures and fewer new jobs. Do you understand?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What bullshit are you whining about now Bubba?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Sure, sure. When the US had MUCH higher marginal rates AND much higher effective rates on those 'job creators', 1945-1980 the US economy sucked right?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



BUT *YOU *said the tax cuts were neutral? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




Nope, probably his tripling the debt and he had a top rate of 50% for first 6 years remember, YET still had to increase revenues, go figure!!!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


It is quite irrelevant what Okun said. Any fool with even a modicum of brain power knows that cutting top marginal brackets more than the lower brackets while cutting corporate taxes are TYPICAL SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS. It takes an abject idiot to believe they are demand side cuts. Demand side cuts are typically putting money into the hands of the least wealthy with the opinion that because they are poor they will spend it all.

Someone brought up Eisenhower yesterday. In spite of his being GOP, he helped create a great economy BECAUSE HE SET OUT TO BUILD A SUPER INFRASTRUCTURE. Not that stimulated the economy. JFK did positive things to the economy because he understood that by using supply side tax cuts he stimulated CORPORATE AMERICA AND GAVE A 21% TAX CUT TO THE RICH SUCH THAT THEY WOULD INVEST, HIRE WORKERS, AND IMPROVE THE ECONOMY. What he called it was irrelevant; it was supply side. Do you need some more definitions of what Supply Side and Demand Side really are?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*First, getting the Buffet rule, the GOP is blocking, min 30% fed tax on $1+ million incomes, would bring in $160+ billion over 10 years, according to CBO estimates*

$16 billion a year will fix things? LOL!

*Going to 45% top rate  for $200,000+ incomes would bring in over $100 billion a year*

The government spent $3454 billion last year. Will $116 billion more land us in utopia? Why?

*Think creating jobs and lowering the deficit would help?*

Lowering the deficit? I thought Obama was going to spend the extra revenue?
Creating jobs? Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




Got it, you'll hang onto right wing garbage, though they didn't cut it  21%, they cut it AND got rid of loopholes that ONLY the rich used,* thus going to the amazingly low 70% top rate **shaking head*

* The giveaway that Kennedy's wasnt really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top*

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;


Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic


And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage




03.13.oleary


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Got it, you will NEVER be honest. Rushblo, is that you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I guess you could compare Reagan's deficit spending and the number of jobs added to Obama's deficit spending and the number of jobs added, but that would further highlight Obama's poor performance.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Raygun did triple the debt. But he still only increased the debt by an amount less than the Obama single year deficits. I have to chuckle at the ignorance when someone makes that claim. 100% of nothing is still nothing. 3 times nothing is still nothing.

Here are some numbers, (which if you are not a total imbecile can be easily checked) that tell the Obama deficit story.

Obama's deficits $2.695 Trillion in 1.92 years for average deficits of $1.403 trillion per year. I got the numbers from the US Treasury site if you want to verify them. Reagan did not have that much deficit his entire 8 years in office. In fact his inflation adjusted deficits for his total 8 year term was $2.4 trillion. (The nominal figure was actually $1.4 trillion)

Do you see how embarrassed you are making yourself by parroting left wing extremist propaganda? THEY LIE.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I pointed out the silliness of your claims. Let me know when you can show how that extra $116 billion per year pulled out of the private sector will help the economy. Rachel, is that you? LOL!

Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You mean Dubya/GOP put US in a deeper hole for Obama  to work out of and the TPGOP refuses to get out and help push? YES


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? Private sector? The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

*Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth.*


...However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.



Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I mean Obama spent a lot more, with incredibly low interest rates, and he still can't fix things. LOL!

*the TPGOP refuses to get out and help *

Obama To GOP: "I Won"


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



STOP LYING AND EMBARRASSING YOURSELF BUBBA

Economists go by percentage of GDP


Obama first F/Y budget begins


National Debt Oct 1, 2009 $11,920,519,164,319.42


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

Did no one read the thread topic?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since hitting Bush's bottom in March 2010 while Dubya's 'job creators' policies lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs mean Obama's policies 'failed' *shaking head*


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*So $116+ billion a year, will not help US at all huh? *

Less than 4% of last years spending helps what?

*The 'job creators' have had the lowest sustained tax burden for 80+ years. WHERE ARE THOSE JOBS?*

Raising taxes will create jobs? How?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> Did no one read the thread topic?



So you CAN'T and will not address your bullshit premise that CRA, Carter and Clinton, and the GSE's caused Dubya's subprime bubble and bust huh? lol

* OR that private markets had NOTHING to do with it? lol*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Cuts the deficit by 25%

Gov't gets to fix infrastructure, perhaps stronger safety nets. Now run along bozo. You are boring me


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



* 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs *

Awesome! So can we cut welfare and food stamps back to Bush levels now? Since Obama's policies "succeeded".

Can we cut government spending back to Bush levels now? Since Obama's policies "succeeded".


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Did no one read the thread topic?
> ...



It's not my premise, I don't care, and it's off-topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Why are you double counting?

Is it for the same reason you confuse income and wealth?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Economics *1*

Definition of Supply Side tax cut policy: Supply Side Economics claimed that if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy plowed their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time. A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics (Left wing source)

Definition of Demand Side fiscal policy: 

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations. 

Demand-side economics is first and foremost a means of ridding an economy of a recession and stimulating economic growth while preventing inflation. It is meant as a control on both expansion and retraction, to keep an economy in a stable zone. *The idea is that to stimulate growth, a government should lower taxes on the middle and working class,* and increase government spending. To combat rising inflation in an expanding economy, a government should raise taxes and reduce spending.

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services. Also called Keynesian economics, after John Maynard Keynes, this concept is usually placed in direct opposition with supply-side economics, which suggests that stimulation is achieved through increasing the supply of goods and services. Like most economic theories, it is far easier to understand the principles of demand-side economics in theory rather than in practice; it should be noted that no theory of economics has ever been proved to work at all times, in all situations.

Supply side and demand side economics are philosophies designed to stimulate the economy by using divergent theories. In theory, supply side economics will cause an influx of investments by the wealthy, prompting new growth. Demand side economics, on the other hand, focuses on stimulating the average consumer to spend more money. 

Read more : Supply Side Vs. Demand Side Economics | eHow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation&#8217;s economic growth." Do you believe that?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nope. NOT double counting, the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. The $100+ can reduce the deficit OR can be used to help US. Weird how 90%+ of current debt can be traced to POLICIES begun by Reagan, Bush and Bush


ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 21, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up. Give me a hundred grand and I'll turn it into a lot more real easily. Isn't hard to invest and earn enough money to live off the principle. But getting the hudnred grand from a few hundred is difficult to say the least.

Should we take from the rich and give to the poor? No. That's not fair. But then capitalism isn't about being fair. So long as we stick to the capitalist model, the majority will get screwed over, and the priviledged rich will get richer. That's how it works. It persists so assuredly because every poor person dreams about becomming a rich person so but for a few times in history when the poor overthrew the rich, no one does anything about it. And even when they have put the rich's heads on pikes as in the French Revolution, the poor who overthrew the rich simply pursued wealth themselves becomming what they overthrew.

Same thing facing wealth inquality now. As long as the system itself perpetuates rich getting richer, poor staying poor, nothing will change. Nothing can change because it isn't individuals or even corporations at fault, but the capitalist system itself.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Economics *1*
> 
> Definition of Supply Side tax cut policy: Supply Side Economics claimed that if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy plowed their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time. A Tale of Two Theories: Supply Side and Demand Side Economics (Left wing source)
> 
> ...



Got it, you will NOT acknowledged JFK wanted to increase the actual *EFFECTIVE *rates on the 'job creators' by getting rid of loopholes AND his proposal to hit those with $180,000+ incomes!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jul 21, 2014)

When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



On those where rates don;'t matter? Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years? 


DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom, so yes, the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs! 

Weird how the ONLY tax increase the GOP was for, was one hitting the bottom 90% the hardest!


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



So what are you advocating then?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up.


That is easily disproved. The 500 wealthiest people in the US has changed by 98% over a decade. Wealth can be inherited, but most of the current wealthy people DID gain that status on their own rather than through gifts or inheritance.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth." Do you believe that?



Yes, history shows it's true! 

*RONNIE HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% FOR HIS FIRST 6 YEARS REMEMBER?*


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You couldn't be honest and admit that increasing taxes kills jobs.  

What are the taxes where rates don't matter?  I can't imaging such a thing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dadtothree, Here is a quote directly from you: "Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth." Do you believe that?
> ...



History shows no such thing.  Reagan lower the top marginal rate from 70% at the beginning of his two terms to 28% by the end.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


*
the $16 billion a year is what Obama wants for infrastructure. *

Less than 0.5% of last year's spending will fix things? 
Didn't Obama already try infrastructure spening in his $800 billion slush fund...errr...stimulus?

*Weird how 90%+ of current debt*

Weird how Obama can't fix things after more than 5 years. I thought he was smart?
Will he ever stop whining about Bush?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Economics *1*
> ...


Why wouldn't I acknowledge that? I liked JFK, and I understood why he CHOSE to call for SUPPLY SIDE TAX CUTS. As shown in the definitions I posted and linked to, his tax cuts WERE DEFINITELY SUPPLY SIDE. Of course he did other things as well. I voted for him and would have voted for him again. After all, I am a liberal, just not a LEFT WING EXTREMISTS like some others on this thread


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.





Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND? 

BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL

How about the subprime auto Biz  and commercial real estate bubbles at the same time as Dubya's subprime bubble? lol

FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A* "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity*. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

* Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.



Under socialism, everyone starves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Economics *1*
> ...



Where did JFK say he wanted to get rid of loopholes and increase effective rates?

You must have a quote handy. You wouldn't make up something like that. Right?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.



It's the game monopoly spread out over the US, a few winners and MANY, MANY losers!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Easy to make money if you have enough of it already to risk by investing it. The richest people didn't start off with nothing, they inherited wealth, they received gifts of wealth, but very few actually started at the bottom and worked their way up.
> ...



Nonsense. LINKS?


Most were BORN ON 3RD BASE LIKE ROMNEY!!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Yes, 70% to 50% in 1981 AND the 50% rate was there until 1987. HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan? Or 70% under LBJ? Gaawwwddd forbid, Ike's 90%+ most have killed the US economuy right?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



False premises, distortions and lies the ONLY thing YOU ever have. Weird


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.
> ...



In reality everyone wins.  Even if they don't become wealthy, they earn far more than average people could earn during pre-capitalist times.  They also have a vast wealth of new technologies and products that previous people had never even conceived of.  The have medical science that prolongs their lives and reduces their suffering.  Obesity is the biggest problem among the poor.

That's all the result of the profit motive.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Those are irrefutable facts.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > When wealth inquality discussions arrise, no one says everyone should be poor together, but rather, they wanna be rich too. Therein lies the flaw with capitalism. For the minroity to be rich, the majority must be poor, it can't work any other way.
> ...




Yes, the US proves that out with our socialist roads, military, education, regulatory infrastructure, fed reserve, etc...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nope, OPINIONS distorted....


----------



## boedicca (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Nope, OPINIONS distorted....




Your Self-Awareness is surprisingly refreshing.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



Who argues the US does away with capitalism, we just want o go back to the way it was BEFORE conservatives manipulated for the benefits of the few


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



We still have some capitalism to pay for the socialist black holes.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, OPINIONS distorted....
> ...



Got it, AGAIN you can't refute ANY of my posts so you try ad homs....


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



True, Walmaret and McD's is sucking a lot off of US


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

I find myself in a very uncomfortable position as a liberal, noting that I have  had to debunk more left wing extremists than conservatives. RWers are bad for the country's economy, but of late I have to admit that the LWers are more extremist and are even worse for our country's economy.

We in the US are fortunate to  have a Capitalist economic system, which has created tremendous prosperity for the most people with out resorting to being a total welfare state like some European countries. But if there is value in a welfare state we can use Sweden as an example. They are a capitalist economic country with the government owning or controlling only 5% of production and distribution, but because they CHOOSE to have a welfare state they tax highly but the fruits of that taxation are given to ALL THE PEOPLE, not just one small segment of the population.

We on the other hand are approaching being a welfare state redistributing wealth to our less wealthy instead of spreading it out among everyone. This has not always been true. As an example, some of our states: free public schools provided free school lunches, transportation, books and supplies to everyone, not just the poor. Everyone over 65 got an old age pension. If we are to have a welfare state, this is how it should be. Income testing to receive tax benefits is immoral.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*On those where rates don;'t matter? *

Which are those?

*Or those with the lowest sustained EFFECTIVE and marginal rates in 80+ years? *

Some rates are lower than recently. Like capital gains.
Some are higher, like the top income tax brackets.
Do higher taxes ever cause jobs to be lost? Be honest.

*DEMAND creates jobs, demand is driven by those at the bottom*

Does raising taxes on business cause job loss? Cause business creation to shrink? Cause demand by the newly unemployed to shrink?

*the payroll tax holiday, that not ONE GOPer opposed it's demise, would've saved jobs! *

Bush's tax cuts saved the middle class more than the payroll tax holiday.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



What is opinion about the statement that $16 billion is less than 0.5% of last year's spending?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Nope.  They provide jobs and inexpensive consumer goods.  Walmart enables millions of people to live better than they could otherwise.  On the other hand, our socialist education system makes our population stupid, and does it at great cost.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*HOW DID THE US PROSPER AT 50% under Reagan?*

Lots of economic activity that people didn't want to undertake at 70% was more attractive at 50%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Pointing out the silliness of your claims makes you sad. Weird.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 21, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



First of all, why do you say morally?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Relative to proving the housing bubble was caused primarily by the government, ranging from Carter's CRA, Clinton's push to house America, and Bush's continuation of Clinton's policy. One should note that the beginning of the inflationary trend started in 1997 and continued through Bush to 2006.
> ...


Are you really that stupid? The primary cause of the housing bubble was low interest used to push housing to more people who could not previously qualify. That started during Clinton's term and the inflation cycle started in 1997.





 It is obvious you can't read a graph or you wouldn't make such stupid comments.

I did not say CRA CAUSED the bubble. I said it contributed to it because the concept of providing home ownership to more of the less wealthy. CRA was not enforced during Carter's administration even though that is when it was passed. Clinton was the one who STARTED to push more home ownership BECAUSE OF CRA, but it was the government policies of *low interest, low or no down payments *continued into Bush's administration which fueled the inflation because of the heated housing market which led to the balloon and subsequent crash. Lenders were not necessarily covered by CRA, but when Fannie and Freddie allowed lower lending standards (sub prime) they had to follow suit to stay in business, and that was part of the deregulation. 

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession. 

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.​
Wait! Government did cause the housing bubble. - CSMonitor.com

In the 2000s, of course, malinvestment appeared largely in real estate, the result of government programs designed to relax underwriting standards and otherwise increase investment in particularly risky real-estate assets. In other words, ABCT tells us to look for malinvestment during the boom, but not where that malinvestment will show up.

Paul Krugman asserts, for example, that the &#8220;Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom.&#8221; Actually, no. A new NBER paper (gated) on the CRA is causing quite a stir. Authored by four economists from NYU, MIT, Northwestern, and Chicago, the paper is the first to use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the CRA from changes that would likely have happened anyway. (The authors use the timing of loan decisions relative to the dates of CRA audits to identify the effect of the CRA on lending.) The results suggest that CRA enforcement did, contra Krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than otherwise. 

Rahan said, "&#8220;
The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet."

I&#8217;d reverse the order of emphasis &#8212; *credit expansion first, housing policy second *&#8212; but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.​
In other words Dad2three, you are looking at old guesses and opinions instead of the more recent ECONOMIC STUDIES which prove the typical left wing assertions were WRONG.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



issues of morality naturally come up when you steal from someone at the point of a gun!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


He has been informed and shown by links, that the only reason the US economy boomed during the 90% top marginal tax rate was a combination of things:

War time mobility
Rapid improvement of Industrialization
Massive investment in infrastructure instead of just giving the poor more money.

Now lets look at Obama's solution here to fore: Give the same amount, $500 billion, to the same people who already receive $500 billion annually in safety net programs. Had he spent that same amount of money on infrastructure he would have put more people to work and ended the great recession much faster, just like Eisenhower did during his administration. Maybe now he will do what he should have done 6 years ago.

He is not smart enough to understand and continues to parrot left wing extremist propaganda (because that is what his puppeteers tell him to do)


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Your belief that everyone benefits from your scheme to loot the earnings of anyone you're envious of is hilarious.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



Because taking money from the people who earned it is a moral issue.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



yes imagine if Steve Jobs went to the govt and said I know I got paid for the iphone but I want the govt to steal part of it back for me because I need the money to make new investments to create new products and new jobs.

Isn't that a more sensible form of redistribution?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Damn, it is getting hard to stay a liberal in the face of all the left wing extremism.

Liberals want:
Good public education
Assistance for those of us who CAN'T earn their own livelihood
Universal health care
Equality of race, creed, sex, and the means for everyone to pursue happiness.

Leftwing extremists want:
Welfare state
Socialist control of the economy
Pay people more wage regardless of their productivity relative to the whole economy​
Just a few tidbits to help people understand the difference between liberals and left wingers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Damn, it is getting hard to stay a liberal in the face of all the left wing extremism.
> 
> Liberals want:
> Good public education( they why do they support  the destructive unions)
> ...




make sense?​


----------



## g5000 (Jul 21, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.



How do you separate those who cannot earn their own money from those who choose not to?


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
> ...



That's ultimately the question with any act of charity.  There are kids with birth defects whose parents truly do need the 700 bucks or so a month from SSI to help their needs, and there are kids whose parents coached them into special education for a check.  But, as you said, how to distinguish?

That's why imo the question of whether we should use the political system to effectively raise wages by taxing profits should be separate from charity.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Amazing! Even the liberal leaning NYTimes recognizes the housing bubble. We all need to recognize that federal housing policy caused the 2006 housing crash. Even with a slight increase in interest between 1997 and 2002 the government pushed housing onto people who could not afford them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/the-bubble-is-back.html?_r=1

Almost everyone understands that the 2007-8 financial crisis was precipitated by the collapse of a huge housing bubble.

Housing bubbles are measured by comparing current prices to a reliable index of housing prices.

Today, after the financial crisis, the recession and the slow recovery, the bubble is beginning to grow again. Between 2011 and the third quarter of 2013, housing prices grew by 5.83 percent, again exceeding the increase in rental costs, which was 2 percent.

Both this bubble and the last one were caused by the government&#8217;s housing policies, which made it possible for many people to purchase homes with very little or no money down. In 1992, Congress adopted what were called &#8220;affordable housing&#8221; goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are huge government-backed firms that buy mortgages from banks and other lenders. Then, as now, they were the dominant players in the residential mortgage markets. The goals required Fannie and Freddie to buy an increasing quota of mortgages made to borrowers who were at or below the median income where they lived. 

Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development raised the quotas seven times, so that in the 2000s more than 50 percent of all the mortgages Fannie and Freddie acquired had to be made to home buyers who were at or below the median income.


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



In other words, you can't think of any examples.  Got it.  

Just saying magic words doesn't mean anything if not backed up with fact.  I gave some facts.  You didn't.


----------



## rdean (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Damn, it is getting hard to stay a liberal in the face of all the left wing extremism.
> 
> Liberals want:
> Good public education
> ...



No one wants that.  It's retarded to even suggest it.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
> ...


After graduate school I had to do an internship in Psychology. I did so at the State Rehabilitation Services in Dothan, AL. There are many ways to determine the difference between can't and won't, not the lease of which are achievement tests/surveys, physical exams (which were required before a person could enter the program) and observation of past history. 

Two things stood out very sharply:

Family history revealed habituation to welfare.
Willingness to work once skills were taught.

Unfortunately, the federal concept does not take either situation into account even though the state could predict who would get a job and keep it and who wouldn't.

Both the before program prediction rate and the post program prediction rates ranged in the 90% rates.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

rdean said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, it is getting hard to stay a liberal in the face of all the left wing extremism.
> ...


If you believe that, you have not been paying attention to the left wing extremists on this thread who parrot that kind of propaganda on a regular basis. if you don't want these things, (Leftwing extremists want:
Welfare state, Socialist control of the economy, Pay people more wage regardless of their productivity relative to the whole economy) then you fall more into the liberal category rather than the left wing extremist category.

So answer a few questions and we will make a reasonable determination. Do you believe that union workers should be paid typical union wages even if not productive by even union standards? Do you want to assist the less wealthy who can earn enough to have a standard of living higher than 90% of the worlds population? Do you want the government to control production and investment wage/income such that the top rung of the wealthy are cut down to size and spread their wealth? Do you believe that the wealth of our country is finite such that the top rung's "share" detracts from the welfare of the less wealthy? Answer these questions honestly and maybe we can arrive at some kind of mutual agreement.

Similarly there is a huge difference between a RW extremist and the typical conservative. When LW extremists talk about those to the right they lump all of into the same bucket of worms, which is, of course, ridiculous.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

rdean said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, it is getting hard to stay a liberal in the face of all the left wing extremism.
> ...



Hardly,  You prove it to be correct every time you post, deanie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 21, 2014)

Matthew said:


> There's a few Africa nations that follow the conservative economic system.



No, there are not.

But there are lots of retarded Communists willing to lie.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



How can you come here to oppose the  redistribution of wealth while the supporting the distribution of over 100 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars to the Jewish State in order to finance the Palestinian Holocaust?


That is extremely hypocritical.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Who argues the US does away with capitalism,



The Communists at KOS and CommonDreams who train you to spew idiocy here.

Are you really so dull that you don't grasp what it is you advocate?



> we just want o go back to the way it was BEFORE conservatives manipulated for the benefits of the few



2006.

Fiscal 2006 marks the high point for purchasing power among Americans across the board. You Communists squawk about income gap; and you lie that the "rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer."

Up until 2006, the rich were getting richer, and the poor were getting richer. The amount of material goods that could be purchased for an hour of work peaked at all levels. You of the left howled that the rich were getting richer at a faster rate than the poor - but everyone was gaining. Now, Obamunism has gutted the middle class, which of course is the goal of the left - to destroy the bourgeoisie - the middle class. The shift of a major portion of the workforce from full time to part time status - the gift Obama his given America, is steadily pushing the middle class into poverty.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


I don't think the concern about the redistribution of wealth, so much as it is TO WHOM DO WE REDISTRIBUTE IT? I have mixed emotions about Israel. First, they have the right to defending itself. So long as the Palestinian terrorists shoot missiles into Israel they have the right to try and stop them. But there is a difference between stopping them and killing hundreds of innocent Palestinians. Maybe they should infiltrate Gaza and Surreptitiously find and destroy the missile sites and cave entrances.

I do believe we should support those who cannot work. We should educate those who can but do not have marketable skills. Beyond that it is hard to justify.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yes, of course, zero-sum _game_. Brain fart.  I am aware the phrase's origin.  That's what happens sometimes when you get past 50.  

Moving on. . . . 

Now for the sake of some, like Dante, who fancies himself to be a master logician and gave your post, that rash of _argumentum ad nauseam_, a thumbs up.  

*Of course the total income of any given year is finite, which is all you're really saying.  Do tell.  Who said it wasn't?  

Answer:  no one, Mr. Straw Man.  Stay away from open flames.  

The sum of any given fixed term is finite, for crying out loud! *

I'm talking about the growth of wealth, especially, the increase in wealth and economic mobility of those emerging from the lower rungs of the economic ladder, which you keep implying to be the finite commodity of annual income.  Apples and Oranges.  For example, you're using the terms _annual income_ and _wealth_ interchangeably, jumping from one to the other.  Your link has nothing to do with the creation and accumulation of new wealth.  Pay attention.  Wealth is not a finite commodity; hence, the market is not a zero-sum-game proposition.  

Rates of taxation above a certain threshold, along with increased regulation and wealth-redistribution schemes like ObamaCare, stunt economic growth due to their negative impact on the factors of production.  They impede the investment and productivity of wealth creation from the bottom up.  

You're going on about some generic model of marginal rates of taxation relative to historical growth in GDP.  I'm well-aware of the recent rash of duplicity proffered by the shills of crony capitalism that would keep the working poor and the middleclass dependent on a corporatist economic structure sponsored by Big Daddy government.  And a good many of the nominally conservative politicians in Washington are feeding the same animal.



> This administration has doubled-down on the corporate welfare of crony capitalism like no other administration before it. It's not even close. This is the same Marxist strategy employed in socialist Europe as a means of stamping out small business, which is virtually non-existent there. The creation of new capitalist enterprises at the upper-middleclass level is necessary to the on-going survival and expansion of capitalism proper, and Marxists know that. What in the world do you think we classical liberals have been talking about these past several years?
> 
> Can't you hear us? Can't you see?
> 
> ...



Hello!  Yours is not the whole story.  Got the informal logical fallacy of incomplete comparison, anyone?

Your propaganda, all your blather and that at the end of your Internet link, is nothing more than the rank stupidity of _surplus value_ defined as _the unpaid surplus labor of the working class_:  classic Marxist doggerel which confounds the finite sum of material resources/the finite sum of any given period of income with wealth.  The latter is not a finite commodity, but the limitless accumulation of production capital ultimately bottomed on the emergence of new enterprises.



> For instance, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found support for the theory that taxes have no effect on economic growth by looking at the U.S. experience since World War II and the dramatic variation in the statutory top marginal rate on individual income.[1] They find the fastest economic growth occurred in the 1950s when the top rate was more than ninety percent.[2] However, their study ignores the most basic problems with this sort of statistical analysis, including: the variation in the tax base to which the individual income tax applies; the variation in other taxes, particularly the corporate tax; the short-term versus long-term effects of tax policy; and reverse causality, whereby economic growth affects tax rates. These problems are all well known in the academic literature and have been dealt with in various ways, making the CRS study unpublishable in any peer-reviewed academic journal.[3]
> 
> So what does the academic literature say about the empirical relationship between taxes and economic growth? While there are a variety of methods and data sources, the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy. In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth. Of those studies that distinguish between types of taxes, corporate income taxes are found to be most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes and property taxes.
> 
> What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? | Tax Foundation



And once again:



> In _Theories of Surplus Value_ Marx conceded that the middleclass was actually growing under capitalism, not disappearing as he had previously held in _The Communist Manifesto_ and _Das Kapital_, and more honest Marxist theorists have since conceded that the working class is not a culturally homogeneous, but a culturally heterogeneous component of production comprised of competing interests, and one that has become increasingly economically mobile under capitalism from generation to generation.  Strike (1) those fallacious critiques of capitalism, the guts of dialectic materialism, insofar as they pertain to the allegedly historical antagonism between the oppressed proletariat and the exploitative bourgeoisie, (2) the abject stupidity of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" and (3) the conceptualization of surplus value as an injustice or a problem to be solved, if not by bargaining than by compulsory wealth redistribution: what more must the world endure at the hands of this debacle before we toss it into the ash heap of history and move on?
> 
> Marxists disregard the rise in wages over time under capitalism as industries reinvest surplus value and grow.  They gloss over the destructive results of over-bargaining industries into stagnation and bankruptcy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Who argues the US does away with capitalism,
> ...



I think what is missed in this is that the GOP continually supports direct monetary redistribution to large families through the tax code.  Though inadequately paid for, during the Bush years, the attempt was made to partially do so by inflating the currency.  By contrast, Democrats are more likely to support strings-attached, means-tested programs, rather than cash handouts.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Define the morality you are referring to, please.


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

Freewill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



The question seems to circle around whether the mere act of earning "too much" money is immoral - are people who do this somehow harming society and, if so, should government pursue remedial measures (aka "wealth redistribution").


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.

One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.

If the government choses to engage in Keynesian economics, they would do better concerning themselves only about government spending which directly increased demand across the board. Effectively like following Eisenhower's example and put the $500 billion Obama threw at the poor and spend it on true shovel ready infrastructure projects.

FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked. It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression.


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



With all respect, I think this illustrates our differences.  I would agree with you, and the corporatism 'thing,' if the discussion was about "rich" having too much, and "poor' not enough ... an issue of morality or even civics based on the rights of individual citizens or even groups.

But, I think morality and even "class warfare" may not be an issue.  The issue could also be that consumers are having less real dsposable income to spend, and thereby create less econ demand, because as a result of de-unionization and globalization, the market of capital to labor has been affected in way to make it different than it was in say ..... 1980.  So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Sounds lovely, but history proves how damaging it is when We (The Government) tries to run individuals lives for them.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...




ORLY?

It Never Ever Ever happens in a state run system that all citizens  have an equal chance to access.    Polically corrected cronies will have far superior access with dregs left over for the Hoi Poloi.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



What makes you think I support that?  In my ideal world, individuals would each conduct their own foriegn policy.

However, so long as the federal government is giving out foreign aid, Israel is the country I least object to receiving it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The only thing that ended mass unemployment was sending all the unemployed off to fight that Germans.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



You don't think looting people is a moral issue because you're a libturd.  Thieves also don't think stealing is a moral issue.  The minute you admit redistribution is a moral issue you have to come up with a moral defence for it, and there is none.


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So, what are some examples of redistribution that you take issue with?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Agit8r said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



I take issue with taxation, period.  It's indistinguishable from stealing, and therefore it's morally indefensible.  The crime is compounded when committed solely so the proceeds (swag) can be transferred to some political constituency.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All a bunch of right wing garbage, I'm shocked. 

Yes, capital gains were cut to 15% under Dubya,  besides benefiting the MOST wealthy among US 9top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends) , how does 20% it is today hurt job creation?


EFFECTIVE rates SUSTAINED haven't been this low since before the GOP great depression!!!

Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years


NO RECENT TAX INCREASE HAS STUNTED GROWTH, PROOF? Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases where he created 3 new brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6%, the economy lost jobs right?

lol

Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most, BUT that doesn't refute the FACT that NO ONE in the GOP fought to stop the payroll tax holiday from increasing, first time in decades the GOP supported increasing taxes, of course it hit those on the bottom 90% NOT those 'job creators'


*CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8*

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

* YEAH, CUTTING TAXES CREATES JOBS *Shaking head**


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Grow a brain.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



And pay wages low enough to suck BILLIONS of fthe Gov't in WELFARE to survive,  that's Walmart entire Biz model


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > So, what are some examples of redistribution that you take issue with?
> ...



Well, good luck with that.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8*

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

*WHAT WERE YOU SAYING? *Even though Reagan BLEW up spending that benefited the 'private sector' and he allowed the S&L crisis to expand as a bubble when he ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984!!!


----------



## Dante (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
> ...



_Reality check! _

Rape and murder are illegal, taxes are not.

Reality check part two:  A twofer: (1) _"You tried to claim that simply living near me entitles someone to my income."_ (2) _"Saying the government gets to tax you is the same as saying the government gets to kill you or through you in prison for no reason."_

two dishonest and disingenuous statements? 

1. & 2. The actual claim is -- you simply being a citizen of the USA and claiming all the rights and benefits of that citizenship, get to be charged with the duty and responsibilities that come with US citizenship.

2. Actually, our government (yes it's yours too) does not get to legally or morally kill anyone or throw anyone into prison -- without reason.

Out Of The Country: actually, this liberal asked why you don't try and convince fellow citizens to change the country or why don't you get out of a country you claim to hate?

It is YOU who just told me to get out of the country. Or was it only a suggestion and if so prompted by what reasoning, your warped reasoning? See?
 [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I find you obnoxious and ignore you.


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



You seem to be arguing expediency over morality. But I think wealth redistribution fails to achieve either of those goals.

What I find most interesting is the willingness of so many of the left to simply assume that wealthy people didn't earn their money and use that as an excuse to go after it. It raises a couple of important questions: first, what does it mean to 'earn' money? and second, doesn't it seem wrong to simply assume that everyone who accumulates a lot of wealth hasn't earned it?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



GAAAWWWWWDDD NOT THE* ZOMBIE LIE*

LOL


*YEAH, A LAW AROUND FOR 30 YEARS AND WEAKENED ENFORCEMENT UNDER DUBYA, CAUSED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, LOL*

 Debunking the CRA Myth  Again

 One of the pernicious myths surrounding CRA is that it encouraged banks to make risky loans to low&#8208; and moderate&#8208;income borrowers.

This argument has been made primarily by conservative  think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute, who find it convenient to  include CRA in their general position against governmental intervention in the  private market.

But efforts to blame CRA for the most recent crisis reflect a deep misunderstanding of the scope and scale of CRA and its implementation.* Indeed, the blame the CRA story has been refuted by industry leaders and  researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go  away.*


In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and  show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom. *In particular,  they present a detailed rebuttal of a recent paper published by the National  Bureau of Economic Research, titled Did the Community Reinvestment  Act Lead to Risky Lending, which purports to find evidence that yes, it did.  The study is severely flawed, both in terms of the empirical analysis and in  the authors interpretation of the results, and thus fails to contribute to the  existing literature on both the strengths and weaknesses of CRA. *

UNC Center for Community Capital


*Fed Study Debunks Conservative Myth That Affordable Housing Policies Caused Subprime Crisis*

We find no evidence that lenders increased subprime originations or altered pricing around the discrete eligibility cutoffs for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) affordable housing goals or the Community Reinvestment Act. *Our results indicate that the extensive purchases of risky private-label mortgage-backed securities by the GSEs were not due to affordable housing mandates.*


http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2012/2012-005.pdf


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


CRA? LOL

*A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.* It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. *How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? *

*For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. *Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.



CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages  Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. *The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.*


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

*Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.*

BANKSTER:


*Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association*, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said* "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.*

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. *"The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."*


Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


KEEP TRYING BUBBA!!!!


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal.  I don't see the morality either.  But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter.  And elections have consequences.  

And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack.  If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.


----------



## Dante (Jul 21, 2014)

*analysis*



Dante said:


> [MENTION=29220]Wiseacre[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Dante said:


> [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No.  To put it most clearly, I don't see any wealth redistribution occurring when the govt taxes healthcare providers, insurors, cap gains or retained corporate profits to pay for workers health care or education.  It is in everyone's interest to have a workforce able to produce.  If the labor market is not efficiently doing this, then the govt may affect the market to benefit all of us.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



An official government report was produced in April 2011 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, led by Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and *Ranking Member Tom Coburn (R-OK)*, titled Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. The Levin-Coburn Report, a 639-page document, including 2,849 footnotes unanimously and unambiguously concluded that *the [2008] crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.*



*WHY DID THE 5 INVESTMENT BANKS, NONE LEFT TODAY AS INVESTMENT BANKS, DECIDE TO GET INTO IT THEN? THEY WEREN'T COVERED UNDER CRA???*



*One would think that understanding that loans made by CRA banks in CRA areas reached their height in 1994 and steadily decreased right through the bubble would convince even the most stubborn ideologue to look elsewhere.*

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdf


*CRA helped the poor and minorities qualify (not the poorly qualified) *for and receive credit at better than the sub-prime rates they were typically offered if they provided documentation they could make the payments.

Private lenders not governed by CRA made loans that required no documentation of ability to pay, the so called NINJA loans, but no lender governed by CRA could do that nor is there any evidence they did; e.g., mortgage-backed securities with a higher percentage of CRA loans in them had lower default rates than average.


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



What do you mean by corporatism here? (everyone seems to define it differently).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



right!! we could end all  poverty on earth by just requiring corporations to hire enough and pay enough. When a Walmart opens 1000's line up for the jobs because they offer 1000's something better than what they have. Walmart is a savior.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was *triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007*.


*CRA AROUND SINCE 1977 WEAKENED ENFORCEMENT UNDER DUBYA CAUSED THAT? SERIOUSLY? LOL
*



November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market



*Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion*

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



*Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%*


*Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%*


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



*Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%*


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8% 




* FACTS on Dubya's great recession *

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



For the sake of our discussion, I've tried to use a notion that corporatism occurs when a govt tries to benefit one group more/or less than another, or confers a benefit to only one group while using resources of others.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Weird, IKE HAD A TOP RATE TOO OF 91%, IT WASN'T LOWERED UNTIL LBJ, TO 70% . Even Ronnie had a 50% top rate his first 6 years. Listen pops, you are to old and dumb to grow a brain, so just have a heart attack ok?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.
> ...



Yes, MILLIONS of moochers running around right? lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



corporatism (Obamacare for example) occurs when govt has the power to control corporations thus rendering corporations more concerned with influencing govt than serving their customers wit the most competitive products in the world!


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Wow, first the title of "Creator" and now "Savior."  That is some f~cking strong Kool-Aid!


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Good. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

So, are you saying this isn't an example of corporatism? Or that it is corporatism but you don't think that's a valid objection?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Amazing! Even the liberal leaning NYTimes recognizes the housing bubble. We all need to recognize that federal housing policy caused the 2006 housing crash. Even with a slight increase in interest between 1997 and 2002 the government pushed housing onto people who could not afford them.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/the-bubble-is-back.html?_r=1
> 
> ...



*"Even the liberal leaning NYTimes recognizes the housing bubble"*

LOL

 The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor

The Bubble Is Back

PETER J. WALLISON

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/the-bubble-is-back.html?_r=2


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


*1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom*



*2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis*


*3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world  it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world. *



*4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now *

YOUR NYT LINK ARTICLE AUTHOR:

*Peter Wallison in 2004: In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.*


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


*GET HONEST ONCE, WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST*


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



you means 1000's  line up for blocks because Walmart offers them something worse than what they had? Are you, as a liberal, against people progressing?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Amazing! Even the liberal leaning NYTimes recognizes the housing bubble. We all need to recognize that federal housing policy caused the 2006 housing crash. Even with a slight increase in interest between 1997 and 2002 the government pushed housing onto people who could not afford them.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/the-bubble-is-back.html?_r=1
> 
> ...



*Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development raised the quotas seven times, so that in the 2000s more than 50 percent of all the mortgages Fannie and Freddie acquired had to be made to home buyers who were at or below the median income.*



June 17, 2004

*Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people*, a home builder group said Thursday. 

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


YES, DUBYA HOSED THE GSE'S, BUT THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE!!


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

\


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.


Successful Americans didn't make their money themselves. They conducted business in an ordered society with roads and laws and a military that defends it from foreign invaders and they hired people. *Nobody wants YOUR money, they want the share they contributed to it*


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



There hasn't been progress for the working class in over three decades.  The average wage for a production worker is lower in Real Dollars than it was in 1979.  Walmart sure the hell isn't helping the cause with their low, low wages.  Walmart is partially responsible for the low wages in all job sectors.
Edward, you need to go to school and take Economics, seriously.  Your constant babbling only let's us educated posters know exactly how little you know about economics and just plain facts.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Nobody wants YOUR money, they want the share they contributed to it



dear, to make money in a free society you have to offer something better than anyone else in the world. You don't tax and cripple the people who got us from the stone age to here. Why not tax and cripple those who dont make such huge contributions to our society rather than those who do?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Who argues the US does away with capitalism,
> ...



2006? Oh right the year the us spent more than they earned, fort the first time ever and part of the Dubya ponzi scheme years

You'd think after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies the US would've have been FLOODED with jobs right? Weird Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years while under Obama's horrible policies, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> under Obama's horrible policies, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010



and yet under Obama unemployment is still 50% higher than it was for decades before the recession? Obama's record is worst since Great Depression.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...




MORE right wing CRAP. I'm shocked, YOU want to take MY posit and change it then argue MY strawman? lol


*Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs*
By BRUCE BARTLETT	


Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today. And the Republicans oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax cuts a hard sell.

These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

*No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.*




*The table below presents the bureaus data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.*








These results are supported by surveys. During June and July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the future course of the economy  another way of saying a lack of customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journals July survey of business economists found, The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists.

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no evidence that this was the case.

None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it, McClatchy reported. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-9 and its grim aftermath.

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagans administration, according to an analysis of the federations data by the Economic Policy Institute.











*Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment.*


MORE:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/


----------



## bendog (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't see it as corporatism to use tax dollars from capital to create or maintain a healthy educated workforce.  1)  the workforce benefits capital as well as labor, by both working to achieve profit for capital and buying capital's goods.  2)  And, MORE Importantly to just the corporatism view, the healthcare and education are equally available to those whose income is solely from capital and not labor.  

I don't see any issue of corporatism in the tax being levied from those professions who get more customers from more people getting healthcare, or any progressive taxes, and certainly not from taxing retained corp profits, passive income and cap gains at the same rate as income.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...





"*FDR tried for 8 years to buy our way out of the great depression by hiring people for the CCW and the WPA for minimum wages and giving to the poor. None of it worked.* It took a war time mobilization, huge sums of money spent to buy war machinery, which got us out of the depression."

NONSENSE, It worked UNTIL FDR listened to the deficit scolds in 1937 and cut spending 10%, took US back to thje conservatives dfepression








YES, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES, WHEN FOLLOWED, LEAD TO DEEP AND WIDE DEPRESSIONS/RECESSIONS!!!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Well Germany seems to be doing ok, and Australia?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...


Much of what you say makes a lot of sense. The most important issue at odds is your comment about unions. New businesses, auto makers and other industrial producers have proved conclusively that Unions serve little to no value in todays market. When unions were at the forefront of wage and benefit as well as safe and comfortable working conditions they did a lot of great work. But in recent years, the government has usurped union activity in the form of OSHA, labor relations et al such that unions have little to do to  improve the lot of the worker. There are obvious exceptions....but they are not the rule. Your comment, "So, taxing profit in the form of dividends or retained corp earnings, or capital gains when stock is sold, and using the proceeds for things like healthcare and public higher education, to which all citizens have an equal chance to access" is probably the most useful I have recent times. It shows liberal thinking with out the extremism so common in this thread. Kudos!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > under Obama's horrible policies, 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010
> ...



Nope, you mean the hole Dubya/GOP left US in is worse, AND even though the TPGOP has fought him EVERY step of the way, MORE THAN 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE HITTING DUBYA'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


*You'd think, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies, the US economy would've been booming? ANYONE?*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...


That was part of it. At one time we had 16 million men in active military service. They could not spend all their money while in combat, and rationing in the states caused many $$$$ to be saved. The mobilization took us out of the great depression, and the pent of needs of consumers unleashed spending not seen for years.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> The only thing that ended mass unemployment was sending all the unemployed off to fight that Germans.



yes but those were only temporary jobs so really had no affect on long term unemployment


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


It looks like you are defending my comment that cutting taxes on the rich and corporations IS SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS, JUST LIKE WHAT JFK AND LBJ DID IN 1964. Thanks for the vote of confidence.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> The mobilization took us out of the great depression,



of course thats silly since the mobilization was temporary and so had no affect on the long term economy.


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



In this case, the corporatism lies less on the side of who will benefit, and more on the side of who will be scapegoated to provide the benefit. The question, the moral question, is whether it's justified to go after a particular segment of society with the explicit intent of taking their wealth because some people think they have too much.

As I've said, going after income that wasn't earned via honest trade and investment should be priority, that's basic property protection.



> I don't see any issue of corporatism in the tax being levied from those professions who get more customers from more people getting healthcare, or any progressive taxes, and certainly not from taxing retained corp profits, passive income and cap gains at the same rate as income.



I do. When we find ourselves tempted to tax some people more because they benefit more, we need to re-examine the policies creating that inequity. Clearly, at that point we've failed to provide for the general welfare and are, instead, serving special interests. If a government service can't be justified as benefiting everyone more or less equally (and thus something that should be paid for more or less equally), then it probably shouldn't be a government service.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


OK, so the government should shut Walmart and McDonalds and all the other businesses like them down. Then what have you got? $10 hamburgers? $$60 shirts? Good for you. You have just thrown 3 to 5 million people out of work.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Yep! That law contributed to the problem as the more recent study proves. If you are  not smart enough to recognize a legitimate study after the defensive sounds from the Fed, they you are too stupid to exist in this world. I don't have to try more, I have proved my point in spades, and you continue to parrot your left wing extremist propaganda.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> Well, I'm not certain that a tax that plain and simply and openly was to take from some to give to others would be legal.  I don't see the morality either.  But, if a tax is levied to benefit the general welfare of all, and if it's tied to a power given to the govt that levies it, then its simply a political matter.  And elections have consequences.
> 
> And that's the distinction I tried to make to dblack.  If the govt's purpose in providing some benefit (or paying for a benefit that was not previously supported by revenue) is a benefit aimed at society as a whole, then I don't see an objection on the basis of corporatism.


I do agree with that. Taxes are essential to finance a government to include defense, law and order, infrastructure, education and any other service essential to the whole.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



they would make them pay higher wages which would mean they would sell far less, and employ far less and our country would become far less competitive than it is, and its already is not very competitive and declining. ALso, it would further speed the exodus of corporations out of America just like the highest tax rate in the world does.

Lilberals lack the IQ to understand that new inventions made our economy grow fro the stone age to here! That is what needs to be encouraged, not more and more welfare for the least productive who already get far far too much!!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



What was the total budget last year, $3.8 trillion?  0.5% would be $18 billion.

His statement looks 100% correct to me.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Can you read? Did you check out the new studies proving CRA HAD A PART IN THE HOUSING BALLOON? Or are you as usual just parroting your left wing extremism propaganda.

No matter how much you deny it, the CRA DID have an effect on the  housing market starting with Clinton even though it was passed into law during Carter's administration. The financial crisis was caused by the housing crash. The balloon was the inflation of housing prices/value. Government policy pushed ALL LENDERS into giving not just sub prime loans but millions of other loans all of which heated up the housing market and CAUSED THE BALLOON. Low or no down payments, and low interest rates was part of how the government monetary and fiscal policy caused the problem. ARMs to speculators or homebuyers who could not afford their payments when interest rates were adjusted up also caused part of the problem. There were multiple causes of the Balloon/Crash, but the most important was government fiscal and monetary policy OF WHICH THE CRA WAS JUST PART.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> There were multiple causes of the Balloon/Crash, but the most important was government fiscal and monetary policy OF WHICH THE CRA WAS JUST PART.



yes very well put!! And lets not forget Fanny/Fredie, huge huge GSE's designed to subvert the free market to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?
> 
> BANKSTERS CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations. CRA? LOL
> 
> ...


Nope, if you could read a graph you would see the upswing started in 1997. Are you blind as well as stupid?





> From Bush&#8217;s President&#8217;s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008


How strange, a leftist president wants to put the blame solely on a rightist president.





> &#8220;The Presidents Working Group&#8217;s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


It was definitely part of the problem.





> A* "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity*. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


The bold was my emphasis. Who ever made the assertion that the enforcement process did not change between 1995 and 2004 was lying through his teeth. Not just an error, an outright bald faced lie.





> * Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*



Are you really that stupid? The primary cause of the housing bubble was low down payment or interest used to push housing to more people who could not previously qualify. That started during Clinton's term and the inflation cycle started in 1997.





 It is obvious you can't read a graph or you wouldn't make such stupid comments.

I did not say CRA CAUSED the bubble. I said it contributed to it because the concept of providing home ownership to more of the less wealthy. CRA was not enforced during Carter's administration even though that is when it was passed. Clinton was the one who STARTED to push more home ownership BECAUSE OF CRA, but it was the government policies of *low interest, low or no down payments *continued into Bush's administration which fueled the inflation because of the heated housing market which led to the balloon and subsequent crash. Lenders were not necessarily covered by CRA, but when Fannie and Freddie allowed lower lending standards (sub prime) they had to follow suit to stay in business, and that was part of the deregulation. 

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession. 

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.​
Wait! Government did cause the housing bubble. - CSMonitor.com

In the 2000s, of course, malinvestment appeared largely in real estate, the result of government programs designed to relax underwriting standards and otherwise increase investment in particularly risky real-estate assets. In other words, ABCT tells us to look for malinvestment during the boom, but not where that malinvestment will show up.

Paul Krugman asserts, for example, that the &#8220;Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom.&#8221; Actually, no. A new NBER paper (gated) on the CRA is causing quite a stir. Authored by four economists from NYU, MIT, Northwestern, and Chicago, the paper is the first to use instrumental-variables regression to distinguish changes in bank lending caused by the CRA from changes that would likely have happened anyway. (The authors use the timing of loan decisions relative to the dates of CRA audits to identify the effect of the CRA on lending.) The results suggest that CRA enforcement did, contra Krugman, lead banks to make substantially riskier loans than otherwise. 

Rahan said, "&#8220;
The key then to understanding the recent crisis is to see why markets offered inordinate rewards for poor and risky decisions. Irrational exuberance played a part, but perhaps more important were the political forces distorting the markets. The tsunami of money directed by a US Congress, worried about growing income inequality, towards expanding low income housing, joined with the flood of foreign capital inflows to remove any discipline on home loans. And the willingness of the Fed to stay on hold until jobs came back, and indeed to infuse plentiful liquidity if ever the system got into trouble, eliminated any perceived cost to having an illiquid balance sheet."

I&#8217;d reverse the order of emphasis &#8212; *credit expansion first, housing policy second *&#8212; but Rajan is right that government intervention gets the blame all around.​
In other words Dad2three, you are looking at old guesses and opinions instead of the more recent ECONOMIC STUDIES which prove the typical left wing assertions were WRONG.[/QUOTE]

None of that long diatribe of bad information negates the newer studies that the CRA DID HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HOUSING BALLOON/CRASH.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

There's an interesting new paper out on the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and the housing bubble. The paper, called "Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?" is by Sumit Agrawal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, and Amit Seru (ABBS). It is a serious economic analysis, which is a major departure from much of the post-2008 grumbling about the CRA. By exploiting the differences in lending behavior within census tracts between banks that are undergoing CRA exams and those that aren't, ABBS find that undergoing a CRA exam is correlated with a rise in mortgage lending and that those loans perform more poorly than those made in the same census tract by institutions not undergoing CRA exams. In other words, the CRA encouraged more lending and as a result it resulted in less prudent lending.

CRA and the Housing Bubble - Credit Slips


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

YES, the "only" institutions which were regulated by CRA were large commercial banks, BUT that CREATED the DEMAND that small mortgage companies happily filled. CRA loans were bundled as securities and sold all around the world...but the starting point of the entire food chain was the government forcing commercial banks to make unwise loans.

What happens to prices when suddenly MILLIONS of people can now buy the same product? Thats right - bidding wars -and prices skyrocketed, didn't they? With skyhigh prices many conventional borrowers chose Alt-A and Option Arm loans for the following reasons: (1) to get into the house, and (2) cope with skyhigh payments. Other's with equity borrowed in order to buy commercial properties. The cancer spread and it all started with CRA, kinda like when you toss a pebble into a pond - the ripple effect. By some estimates all this housing activity accounted for more than 40% of ALL jobs in the U.S. since 2001. Its ALL inter-related. 

CRA caused the housing crash


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, what you have is a bunch of unemployed people, but at least the Obama drones wouldn't be able to blame Walmart for all the unemployment insurance and welfare they would be sucking down.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

'twas Wall Street greed what done it, some folks say, when it comes to explaining the spectacular housing meltdown of recent years, which had its roots in a great many astonishingly risky loans. Other folks suggest that the federal government just may have played something of a role in inducing, even strong-arming, banks to take risks they otherwise would have avoided. Specifically, the Community Reinvestment Act and related policy pressures are pointed to as culprits, part of a government effort to extend home-ownership in lower-income neighborhoods. Now comes a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that says, quite bluntly. that the CRA played a major role.

Study Says Community Reinvestment Act Induced Banks To Take Bad Risks - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Why did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse. 

Contrary to the misconception that it was the free market that made the housing bubble possible it was interference in the market place that distorted the demand and supply variables for credit and real estate. The Federal Reserve greatly distorts the supply and availability of money with its anti-free market loose interest rate manipulation. The Government also interferes in the market place with non-sense guarantees of home loans made through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, and VA.

It wasn&#8217;t the free market that encouraged malinvestment and speculation. It was the Government guaranteeing home loans through various agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that eliminated risk as the lender would have the ability to make loans while the Government guaranteed its potential losses.


Why Did The Housing Market Crash?*|*WTF Finance


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

Do you guys get that this whole 'why did the market crash' bickering has exactly nothing to do with the moral justification for wealth redistribution?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Although the media are full of talk that we face a "crisis of capitalism," the underlying cause of the financial meltdown is something much more mundane and practical--the housing, tax, and bank regulatory policies of the U.S. government. *The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, penalty-free refinancing of home loans, tax preferences granted to home equity borrowing, and reduced capital requirements for banks that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) have all weakened the standards for granting mortgages and the housing finance system itself. *Blaming greedy bankers, incompetent rating agencies, or other actors in this unprecedented drama misses the point--perhaps intentionally--that government policies created the incentives for both a housing bubble and a reduction in the bank capital and home equity that could have mitigated its effects. To prevent a recurrence of this disaster, it would be far better to change the destructive government housing policies that brought us to this point than to enact a new regulatory regime that will hinder a quick recovery and obstruct future economic growth.

The current financial crisis is not--as some have said--a crisis of capitalism. It is in fact the opposite, *a shattering demonstration that ill-considered government intervention in the private economy can have devastating consequences. The crisis has its roots in the U.S. government's efforts to increase homeownership, especially among minority and other underserved or low-income groups, and to do so through hidden financial subsidies rather than direct government expenditures. The story is an example, enlarged to an American scale, of the adverse results that flow from the misuse and manipu-lation of banking and credit by government. When this occurs in authoritarian regimes, we deride the outcome as a system of "policy loans" and note with an air of superiority that banks in these countries are weak, credit is limited, and financial crises are frequent. When the same thing happens in the United States, however, we blame "greedy" people, or poor regulation (or none), or credit default swaps, or anything else we can think of--except the government policies that got us into the disaster.

Cause and Effect - Economics - AEI*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> Do you guys get that this whole 'why did the market crash' bickering has exactly nothing to do with the moral justification for wealth redistribution?


It has to do with government interference, much the same as excess taxation does.


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys get that this whole 'why did the market crash' bickering has exactly nothing to do with the moral justification for wealth redistribution?
> ...



yeah, but it's all arm wrestling over pragmatic concerns. Nothing at all to do with moral considerations.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I think we can all agree the using govt to steal from others as libs do is immoral.


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



We can?? Seems that's the principal matter of disagreement.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 21, 2014)

Yes... They are that stupid...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



so then tell us how stealing from others is moral?


----------



## dblack (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I don't think it is. But it seems some here disagree.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)*

This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?

*Marginal rates, heck even that socialist Reagan had the top rate at 50% for 6 years*

There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.

*Look at Clinton's 1993 tax increases *

Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.

*Dubya's tax cuts benefited the RICHEST ($1+ MILLION ) the most*

And benefited the middle class more than the SocSec "holiday".

*CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS *

Makes you wonder why his misery index was so high?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



All that success and Carter could only carry 6 states? The people must not have believed he was any good.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am

Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

*WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yeah, because before  Walmart and McD's we had $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts *shaking head*


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It boggles the mind how the moonbat messiah got re-elected...

Oh wait, the republicrats nominated a "moderate".

It makes sense now.

Sort of.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



SO YOU IGNORE THE STUDY THAT RIPPED THE AEI STUDY APART?


YEAH, A LAW AROUND FOR 30 YEARS AND WEAKENED ENFORCEMENT UNDER DUBYA, CAUSED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, LOL

Debunking the CRA Myth  Again

*One of the pernicious myths surrounding CRA is that it encouraged banks to make risky loans to low&#8208; and moderate&#8208;income borrowers.*

This argument has been made primarily by conservative think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute, who find it convenient to include CRA in their general position against governmental intervention in the private market.

But efforts to blame CRA for the most recent crisis reflect a deep misunderstanding of the scope and scale of CRA and its implementation. Indeed, the blame the CRA story has been refuted by industry leaders and researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go away.


*In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom.* *In particular, they present a detailed rebuttal of a recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending, which purports to find evidence that yes, it did. The study is severely flawed, both in terms of the empirical analysis and in the authors interpretation of the results, and thus fails to contribute to the existing literature on both the strengths and weaknesses of CRA. *

*January 2013 *

UNC Center for Community Capital




*Fannie & Freddie Mac & CRA didnt cause the Mortgage Crisis*



A study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University on the Subprime Lending and the Community Reinvestment Act concluded that: data provided by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveal that loans covered by the CRA accounted for only a fraction of mortgage lending to lower-income borrowers and neighborhood



*Their data clearly shows that the vast majority (94%) of subprime lending was conducted by lenders outside of CRA scrutiny, and therefore under no government coercion  to lend to lower income and/or higher risk borrowers.*


http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/cra-assessment-image.gif

Fannie & Freddie Mac & CRA didn?t cause the Mortgage Crisis | Fact and Myth


US GOV'T POLICY HUH?


*JUNE 16, 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops *


The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist


GROW A BRAIN!!!


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



No, after WalMart and McD's we got $.05 burgers and $1 shirts because Sam Walton and other businessmen minimized profit margins in order to undercut competition.

Bolshevik parasites like you would have unions in every store, bread lines, shortages of toilet paper and a People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs "re-educating" people in "happy camps" (for the rest of their lives), but at least we'd all be equal right?

I'm disturbed you have reproduced.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...




Oh... right...

The Ecommunist...


That's not a leftist rag...


Get a grip bed wetter.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > There were multiple causes of the Balloon/Crash, but the most important was government fiscal and monetary policy OF WHICH THE CRA WAS JUST PART.
> ...



RIGHT WING LIAR. I'm shocked, I've already spanked you on that nonsense here


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.








A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.* It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.*








Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. 

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fannieFreddie2.jpg




*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.*







*Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act  Source: McClatchy*

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


----------



## boedicca (Jul 21, 2014)

Question:  what percentage of subprime loans were overseen by FM/FM?

And why did FM/FM get bailed out?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 21, 2014)




----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.
> 
> One other thing that our current left wing extremist will not admit, it is easy to prove that under the proper conditions supply side economics does improve the economy. It is very difficult to prove that demand side economics improves the economy.
> 
> ...



Indeed, while wealth creation is potentially limitless given the discovery and application of new technologies, especially, the level of wealth creation does rise and fall as a result of the rise and fall in the level of production.  That's axiomatic.  Good eye.  Some might mistake my observation to preclude the ups and downs of the economic cycle.  

I'm a Lockean, so I'm not keen on the historical concerns of socialist societies.  

The Swedish model is indeed all you say it is and more, though as a Christian I can't abide the encroachments on the individual's natural rights and the moral compromises that go along with it.  Notwithstanding, it works not only because the benefits are universally distributed in Sweden, but because the work ethic is strong there, its economy is competitive, its government is tolerant of educational choice and other partially privatized services, and the composition of Sweden's population is among the most homogenous on Earth.  (Yes, I know there are those who argue that the latter is exaggerated, but Sweden is more racially and, more importantly, ideologically homogenous than America, and has, shall we say, a more selective immigration policy.)  It would never work here, but, as you suggest, significant, "across the board" investments in genuinely durable infrastructure serve to promote the factors of production to the benefit of all the people.  That's the way to go here sans punitive and insanely complicated income and corporate tax structures.

As for the barking madness that the higher returns of investment enjoyed by the wealthy somehow cheat the less wealthy out of their portion of the pie, that finite pie in the sky as if the production of wealth were a zero-sum game . . . what can a fella do but reiterate the obvious.   As you say:



> Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.



Just curious, what precisely in your mind constitutes right-wing extremism to the detriment of the economy?

I'm not looking for a fight, mind you, and we might even agree depending on what you have in mind.  You strike me as a reasonable fella.

I'm one of those mad-dog conservatives, you know . . . according to left-wing extremists.  A fascist.  LOL!  

What I am is a liberal, of course.  The term _conservative_ is a cultural label, referring, for the most part, to an American who holds to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded, whether all self-identifying conservatives fully embrace or be fully aware of the foundational doctrines of that tradition, concerning natural law and the state of human nature, or not.  Of course, the conservative label does refer to a different kind of political species in other parts of the world.  Leftist extremists in American don't seem to grasp these subtleties, more at the term's broader connotations.  Contemporary American conservatives generally agree on Locke's labor theory of property at the very least, which is as solid as a rock in my opinion.  Give me some of that old time rugged individualism:  the preservation of private property, the foundation of liberty.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?
> ...



None of that long diatribe of bad information negates the newer studies that the CRA DID HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HOUSING BALLOON/CRASH.[/QUOTE]

*How strange, a leftist president wants to put the blame solely on a rightist president.It was definitely part of the problem*

YES, BUSH'S GROUP BLAMING BUSH, WEIRD RIGHT?

*The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets MAY  2008*
\



http://www.iasplus.com/en/binary/iosco/0805ioscosubprimereport.pdf





*YOUR 'ECONOMIC STUDIES' ARE NOTHING BUT RIGHT WING (THINK AEI, PETER WALLISON, ED PINTO BULLSHIT!) IT'S BEEN DEBUNKED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER*


*"New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com"*

LOL

*THIS STUDY TEARS THE AEI (THE GUYS WHO WROTE IT FOR THE BIZ GROUP, APART!!!*




Indeed, the blame the CRA story has been refuted by industry leaders and researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go away


 In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom*. In particular, they present a detailed rebuttal of a recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending, which purports to find evidence that yes, it did. The study is severely flawed, both in terms of the empirical analysis and in the authors interpretation of the results, and thus fails to contribute to the existing literature on both the strengths and weaknesses of CRA. *


Debunking the CRA Myth  Again


UNC Center for Community Capital


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Weird, so there was a housing bubble? AND?
> ...



None of that long diatribe of bad information negates the newer studies that the CRA DID HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HOUSING BALLOON/CRASH.[/QUOTE]



* Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."*



Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

*Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money. *



FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

MAY 2008

*The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.*














*At an FCIC hearing in January 2010, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told the Commission, I blame the management teams 100% . . . and no one else.*



Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan told the FCIC: Over the course of the crisis, we, as an industry, caused a lot of damage. Never has it been clearer how poor business judgments we have made have affected Main Street.


*Alan Greenspan:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.*


*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it. *






*...The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes




*Jun 16th 2005*




*The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops *



According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs



The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist

*Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis*



GROW A BRAIN BUBBA!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> There's an interesting new paper out on the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and the housing bubble. The paper, called "Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?" is by Sumit Agrawal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, and Amit Seru (ABBS). It is a serious economic analysis, which is a major departure from much of the post-2008 grumbling about the CRA. By exploiting the differences in lending behavior within census tracts between banks that are undergoing CRA exams and those that aren't, ABBS find that undergoing a CRA exam is correlated with a rise in mortgage lending and that those loans perform more poorly than those made in the same census tract by institutions not undergoing CRA exams. In other words, the CRA encouraged more lending and as a result it resulted in less prudent lending.
> 
> CRA and the Housing Bubble - Credit Slips



YEAH, AEI'S BULLSHIT HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, OVER AND OVER

*    Its telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. Thats because CRA didnt bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA  or any federal regulator. Law didnt make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> YES, the "only" institutions which were regulated by CRA were large commercial banks, BUT that CREATED the DEMAND that small mortgage companies happily filled. CRA loans were bundled as securities and sold all around the world...but the starting point of the entire food chain was the government forcing commercial banks to make unwise loans.
> 
> What happens to prices when suddenly MILLIONS of people can now buy the same product? Thats right - bidding wars -and prices skyrocketed, didn't they? With skyhigh prices many conventional borrowers chose Alt-A and Option Arm loans for the following reasons: (1) to get into the house, and (2) cope with skyhigh payments. Other's with equity borrowed in order to buy commercial properties. The cancer spread and it all started with CRA, kinda like when you toss a pebble into a pond - the ripple effect. By some estimates all this housing activity accounted for more than 40% of ALL jobs in the U.S. since 2001. Its ALL inter-related.
> 
> CRA caused the housing crash



*YES, the "only" institutions which were regulated by CRA were large commercial banks, BUT that CREATED the DEMAND that small mortgage companies happily filled. *


*WHY THE FUCK WOULD THE SMALL (OR LARGE) MORTGAGE COMP'S GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CRA OR THEIR GOALS? THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED IN IT. Oops*

  CRA AROUND FOR 30 YEARS CAUSED THE SUBPRIME MARKET TO EXPLODE IN 2004? LOL



FACTS on Dubya's great recession
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A* "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity.* This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?

*A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics*. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. *In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending.* *(and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)*

Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages.* Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006*


https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf


*Q. Er uh, didnt you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?*

*A. It did kinda say that didnt it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increas*e. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. *So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.*


*In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier*

FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899



Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it a Subprime Bubble?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesnt make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bushs working group said it was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,. He leaves out the part where it quickly spread to all mortgages. In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. Thats over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. Another form of easing is a nice way of saying lower lending standards. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDNT REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

*A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. *


MUCH,MUCH MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> 'twas Wall Street greed what done it, some folks say, when it comes to explaining the spectacular housing meltdown of recent years, which had its roots in a great many astonishingly risky loans. Other folks suggest that the federal government just may have played something of a role in inducing, even strong-arming, banks to take risks they otherwise would have avoided. Specifically, the Community Reinvestment Act and related policy pressures are pointed to as culprits, part of a government effort to extend home-ownership in lower-income neighborhoods. Now comes a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that says, quite bluntly. that the CRA played a major role.
> 
> Study Says Community Reinvestment Act Induced Banks To Take Bad Risks - Hit & Run : Reason.com



*WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, LOL*



*I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.*

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 21, 2014)

Explain how a US sub-prme mortgage crisis went world wide by itself or STFU, 2,350th tier partisan hack.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Why did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse.
> 
> Contrary to the misconception that it was the free market that made the housing bubble possible it was interference in the market place that distorted the demand and supply variables for credit and real estate. The Federal Reserve greatly distorts the supply and availability of money with its anti-free market loose interest rate manipulation. The Government also interferes in the market place with non-sense guarantees of home loans made through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, and VA.
> 
> ...



* It wasnt the free market that encouraged malinvestment and speculation. It was the Government guaranteeing home loans through various agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that eliminated risk as the lender would have the ability to make loans while the Government guaranteed its potential losses.*


WEIRD, SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A GOV'T GUARANTEE IS OR DOES? IF THAT WAS THE CASE WHY DID THE BANKS LOSE MONEY? LOL


STOP BEING SO IGNORANT OLD MAN!!!




*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it.*


*No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)*


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: *The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market.* The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. *The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.*

*Heres some data to back that up: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.*

As Center For American Progresss David Min pointed out to me, the timing doesnt work at all: *But from 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50% to just under 30% of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10% to about 40% over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans.*

2. The governments affordability mission didnt cause the crisis


*4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now*


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture


...The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. *The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it.





...The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.



Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes




Government data show Fannie and Freddie didnt take the same risks that Wall Streets mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.



The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earthThey were opposite of subprime.


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Explain how a US sub-prme mortgage crisis went world wide by itself or STFU, 2,350th tier partisan hack.



No Bubba, it was a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE BUBBA. In the US Dubya's REGULATOR failure allowed it to happen here


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. *Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.*


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



*The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along*. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Question:  what percentage of subprime loans were overseen by FM/FM?
> 
> And why did FM/FM get bailed out?



*Very few, they didn't meet their underwriting standards, but WHY they got bailed out? Dubya REQUIRED them to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's starting in 2002*

He then changed Clinton's rules and allowed them to count the MBS's from the PRIVATE markets (that didn't meet F/F underwriting standards) to against his 'affordable housing goals from 50% to 56%



"(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high&#8208;risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


*The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earthThey were opposite of subprime.*

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 21, 2014)

The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist



> The global boom in house prices has been driven by *two common factors*: *historically low interest rates* have encouraged home buyers to borrow more money; and households have lost faith in equities after stock markets plunged, making *property look attractive*As a built in historic wealth containment mechanism. Will prices now fall, or simply flatten off? And in either case, what will be the consequences for economies around the globe? The likely answers to all these questions are not comforting.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 21, 2014)

Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Pete7469 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...





BLOW ME!! Bubba


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how a US sub-prme mortgage crisis went world wide by itself or STFU, 2,350th tier partisan hack.
> ...



A credit bubble doesn't originate from lenders, it originates from those who mandate lending; the Federal Reserve and the initiatives of the congress of both wings.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 21, 2014)

Who controls interest rates, Derp2three?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> > The global boom in house prices has been driven by *two common factors*: *historically low interest rates* have encouraged home buyers to borrow more money; and households have lost faith in equities after stock markets plunged, making *property look attractive*As a built in historic wealth containment mechanism. Will prices now fall, or simply flatten off? And in either case, what will be the consequences for economies around the globe? The likely answers to all these questions are not comforting.



Cool and?

*Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?*

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




*Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?*


* after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around,* the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. 

*When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:*

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. *Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.*


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 21, 2014)

Who controls interest rates?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Who controls interest rates, Derp2three?



Look to my next post Bubba, 

*I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.*

John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington




NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. *Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.*


FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010


Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


* after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around*, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. 

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



Really? Initiatives? Weird, a world wide credit bubble and bust because of Congress *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Glad you agree, tax cuts DON'T create jobs!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


* There were a lot more loopholes and tax shelters as well.*


YEP











the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. *At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009
*  DOUBLE YOUR INCOME AND PAY HAL;F THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES? LOL

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)



* Now explain why taking more money from taxpayers creates jobs or increases growth.*

Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out, creating more wealth, expanding your Biz and JOBS. Pretty simple really. Why didn't you know that?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Why did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse.
> 
> Contrary to the misconception that it was the free market that made the housing bubble possible it was interference in the market place that distorted the demand and supply variables for credit and real estate. The Federal Reserve greatly distorts the supply and availability of money with its anti-free market loose interest rate manipulation. The Government also interferes in the market place with non-sense guarantees of home loans made through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, and VA.
> 
> ...



*Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown*



Government data show Fannie and Freddie didnt take the same risks that Wall Streets mortgage-backed securities machine did. *Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.*

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddies regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point.

*The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earthThey were opposite of subprime.*

*Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didnt start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share theyd lost to more aggressive Wall Street players.* Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks...

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast


*DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE CAUSED IT!!!!*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Bwa ha ha ha ha





> Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
> Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS
> 
> *WOW, IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHY DID CARTER CREATE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN RONNIE, WHO TRIPLED THE DEBT?*


What has that got to do with JFK's Supply Side Tax cut?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Before the inflation which has taken place since McDonalds and Walmart were created maybe, but now? $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts are likely less than they would be. Hint, I had to pay $60 for a simple dress shirt in May. I was not pulling that price out of my rear. It appears you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice....and you wonder where the smell comes from


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

BTW Dad2three, 
a Big Mac averages $4.62 in the US. If they were forced to pay their employees what they do in Scandinavia, they would cost close if not more than $10. Is that what you want?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



I've paid as much as $85 for a dress shirt, but normally I buy them at Sam's Club or Costco for $18-$25.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Why did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse.
> ...


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators 

Wall Street Journal October 4, 2004:

Fannie Mae isnt an ordinary company and this isnt a run-of-the-mill accounting scandal. The U.S. government had no financial stake in the failure of Enron or WorldCom. But because of Fannies implicit subsidy from the federal government, taxpayers are on the hook if its capital cushion is insufficient to absorb big losses. Private profit, public risk. Thats quite a confidence game  and its time to call it.

Moe- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have failed and you, the tax payers, ARE bailing them out. I just wanted to make that loud and clear.

Fan and Fred also couldnt prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left, both in Congress and the intellectual class. This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. Krugman and the Washington Posts Steven Pearlstein in the press. Their claim is that the companies are essential for homeownership. Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannies left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing. - See more at: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Yep! We were talking about what would happen if we got rid of the Walmart/Sams type of stores.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yup, Obama added 5.5 million jobs and it only took $6.26 trillion in new debt, $1,138,000 million per job.

Reagan added 14.7 million jobs and he added $1.76 trillion in new debt, $119,727 per job.
Oh yeah, beat the Soviet Union. How's that Russia reset working out for ya?


----------



## Dante (Jul 21, 2014)

what a drag to scroll through

too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains*

Why do you keep confusing capital gains with dividends?
Why do you keep confusing wealth with income?

You're not very good at this.

*Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out*

If my corporate tax rate is 35% instead of 15%, I'm going to invest less in my business, not more.

The higher rate is going to cause me to create fewer new businesses, not more.
Cause me to hire fewer employees, not more.

You're not very good at this.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> BTW Dad2three,
> a Big Mac averages $4.62 in the US. If they were forced to pay their employees what they do in Scandinavia, they would cost close if not more than $10. Is that what you want?



Bubba, GROW A FRKKKING BRAIN. EVERYTHING you've posited has been proven just more right wing garbage.

You mean IF Mc'D's was FORCED to pay a living wage with tax payer subsidies, their Biz model would fail? BOO HOO

NOT like they would adept, like Australia right?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Yep, Ronnie tripled US debt, and the policies satarted under Dubya are killing Obama who MIGHT add 80% to his debt. Go look at US debt OCT 1, 2009, his first F/Y

AGAIN, Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies. Weird where were those 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Dante said:


> what a drag to scroll through
> 
> too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?



I tried to take it over to my posts, he refused. Sorry

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got it, you'll CHOOSE to be dishonest, I'm shocked. No really, I am


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends*  <------idiot


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators
> 
> Wall Street Journal October 4, 2004:
> 
> ...





Got it, YOU are to ignorant and ideological to understand the difference on an ACCOUNTING scandal and subprime regulator failure created by Dubya-

Try this


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*Go look at US debt OCT 1, 2009, his first F/Y*

Why would I ignore the fact that he added spending well before Oct 1, 2009?
That would be dishonest.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Jan 7, 2009 - The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion

The Budget and Economic Outlook - CBO

Yes, YOU are dishonest


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Yes, YOU are dishonest*


'Bubba, ASK me I'll provide

It was CAP GAINS however

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains'


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




He beat the USSR? Really? lol

673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs lost under Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies. How much per job was that in their tax cuts?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > what a drag to scroll through
> ...



This was an interesting thread until you started boring the shit out of everyone with all this technical horse manure.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



*This was an interesting thread* 

Not really, libertarian bullshit was all



* technical horse manure.*

Sorry, I understand ANYTHING not small enough for a bumper sticker is wasted on conservatives!


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Who controls interest rates, Derp2three?
> ...



Who controls interest rates, Derp2Three?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist
> ...





TakeAStepBack said:


> Who controls interest rates?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist
> ...



Liberal intervention in housing market was massive!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth  into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison


In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) SEC, Govt ratings agencies, and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.

 When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency. That empowered money lenders said Lynn Turner.

Just as significantly you had very badly conceived govt accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.

Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with the private market, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



*"regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



"regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...





*It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it. *More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. *The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.*

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.




Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn.* Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing*.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


*WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST*



*The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," *the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.



His link did that?

I thought it was his own fault.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



*The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence*

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

*FACTS on Dubya's great recession*


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



The joint down the road charges between $8-10 per burger (with fries) and it is well worth it. Really good burgers if you have the time.

I'm glad McD's is there for when I need to scarf down a couple $1 doubles when I'm in a hurry.

I'm hoping this libtard "dad2three" is a step father, because genetic garbage like him should be swallowed or end up in a planned parenthood dumpster.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



The ignore feature really cleans things up when these leftist agitprop douchebags spam the fuck out of threads with their idiotic bullshit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence*



dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence*
> ...



Oh no...

There are millions of these retards!!!

That's why as deplorable and barbaric as abortion is, I encourage bed wetters to get them.

BTW, Paul Krugman regurgitates insipid shit like that.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaED2ErdIv8]Krugman calls for space aliens to fix U S economy - YouTube[/ame]


They REALLY ARE that stupid.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence*
> ...



You mean AEI/Koch funded 'economists';? 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Pete7469 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



False premises, distortions and LIES. I'm shocked

*
Parrots repeat what they hear. The RW media doesn't profit from educating their listeners. They know the money is in saying outrageous things that fit their listeners ideology. The listeners want to be outraged.* The RW media produces the outrageous material. Truth not required. It's a symbiotic relationship.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence*
> ...



Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

When regulators dont believe in regulation and dont get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,...If they dont understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then its impossible to bring cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

*Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005*

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

*The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.*

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

*DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!*

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. *Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?





so dad 3 agrees???you agree??


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)*
> 
> This error was funny the last time you said it. Or is it a lie?
> 
> ...



Once it is a mistake. Repeated after correction, it is a lie.

In all fairness, dumb2three doesn't grasp the shit he posts. He is a feral baboon, flinging shit from the hate sites. He has no actual grasp of the idiotic nonsense he posts, and he cannot debate or discuss them. He cuts & pastes from the leftist whackadoodle sites - period.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)*
> ...



You're being way too nice...

and at the same time insulting primates in general.


----------



## bendog (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



You got that right.  Overregulation caused the credit meltdown.  No one disputes this!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am
> 
> Carter INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS
> Reagan 14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS
> ...



Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category? 

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 22, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.



He doesn't read his links or even the nonsense he posts. He is like a lower version of Franco, cut and pasting massive amounts of spam from the leftist hate sites. But this one doesn't even bother to read the crap he posts.

He can't defend the ideas he posts, because he has no grasp of the ideas he posts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *This was an interesting thread*
> 
> Not really, libertarian bullshit was all
> 
> ...



Dude, we've LONG ago established that you don't grasp a fucking thing that you post. You cut & paste from the hate sites, with no idea what the shit you post even means. 

You're just a feral baboon.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 22, 2014)

Don't sweat Obama's Great Recession.

It'll be over and we'll have full employment when he starts World War III by executive order.  Hey, He don't need Congress - He got a phone and He got a pen.

Why He's twice the knave Roosevelt was so why act surprised when it happens?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *This was an interesting thread*
> ...









Do you have to be so mean? What have baboons ever done to you?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Don't sweat Obama's Great Recession.
> 
> It'll be over and we'll have full employment when he starts World War III by executive order.  Hey, He don't need Congress - He got a phone and He got a pen.
> 
> Why He's twice the knave Roosevelt was so why act surprised when it happens?



I don't think the moonbat messiah could start a cat fight in a whore house with a bottle of Wild Turkey.

If there is a serious conflict it will be in spite of that dipshit's efforts.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Pete7469 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



This is true, 3dad cuts and pastes as if he's the only one who can cut and paste. UMB is for debate, not cut and paste.  I guess he has no choice given that he cant debate. Oh well.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 22, 2014)

Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.

Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . . 

I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it.  How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?


----------



## Freewill (Jul 22, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.
> 
> Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .
> 
> I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it.  How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?



Moral decisions are made by a person not a government.  What a person uses for their decision regarding morality is unique to the person.  Some religious beliefs, some use what they would call naturalism, and some apparently will use "anti" anything.

So we all live in society.  A society that needs roads.  Roads that the private sector is more or not likely going to build.  So as a people we decide we need roads.  Why we decide such is not really that important.  In other words a person of religion might think it good because we can transport charity works better, someone else might think it good because they want to get to the beach faster.  Whatever the reason people decide to build roads and that cost money.  So how those roads are financed is the next question.  But all the people put money up to pay for that which they use.

Now someone will say, why should the government, the same government we give money to build roads, give my money to someone on welfare.  The discussion is the same as with building roads.  Although the majority may think that we need to build roads then the money is worth spending, but those who don't drive may think it a waste of time and dirt roads are just fine. So society decides that welfare is something beneficial to society as a whole.

So we as a society decide how to spend money.  I don't want to spend money on abortion but society has decided that is OK.  One problem that enters in is if society chooses to display a Manger set at Christmas, no longer is the decision by the majority it is the minority that decides.  In lies the problem.  The majority are pissed because they are forced by the minority to do what they don't want done.

Same with abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other issues that get shoved down the throats of the majority by the minority.  And when the issue doesn't go the way of the minority they simply get a court to rule otherwise.  And damn be the court that doesn't rule in the favor of the minority.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 22, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.
> 
> Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .
> 
> I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it.  How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?



Yep.  What we have here is an endless stream of _argumentum ad nauseam_ of the zero-sum-game mentality.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.
> 
> Dragging the train back onto the tracks. . .
> 
> I am still looking for somebody on the left to explain to me why it is righteous, moral, ethical, or right for you to claim any part of what I earn for yourself when you did absolutely nothing to earn it.  How do you arrive at what portion of what I earn that you are entitled to?



I think the left's explaination  would ultimately depend on their compassion for those who absolutely cant support themselves. As a conservative I don't mind supporting those folks as long as its done in a way that doesn't produce more and more of them.

The utter destruction of the black family and black culture is a case in point wherein liberal compassion turns into near-genocide.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 22, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.
> ...



*
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!*

Yeah, right.  So the German invasion of Poland wasn't a moral decision?  How about the decision to shove Jews into gas ovens?  How about Israel's decision to bomb Gaza?  According to you there's no reason for anyone to complain about that?

That has to be on the Top Ten List of dumbest claims ever posted in this forum.

I love the way you turds neatly step over the issue of morality and then immediate proceed to the the technical aspects of how you're going use the proceeds from looting the citizens of this country.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 22, 2014)

Freewill said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.
> ...



But the question is not what society has decided is 'okay'.  Society once decided that slavery was okay.  That limiting women's rights was okay.  That putting people in stocks or burning witches at the stake or public hangings was okay.  But when analyzed within the cold, brutally honest light of morality, such things could not be justified and society ended these things.

Likewise, those things we agree to via social contract--voting bonds to build schools and fund fire departments or police departments or build roads or water systems or sewer systems or street lighting--all these are in the interest of the GENERAL welfare shared by rich and poor, famous and infamous, powerful and less powerful alike without regard to class, race, gender, or sociopolitical standing.

That is a very different thing that you claiming what I have earned because I have more than you do.  I am asking on what basis of morality can you claim what I have earned when you contributed nothing to the earning of what I have earned?  And what is the proper portion of what I earn that you are entitled?


----------



## Pete7469 (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's face it.  There are some people too dumb to know they're clueless and others who are dumb like foxes with a mission to make sure no serious discussion gains any traction in a topic that might educate people on how bad the current administration is.  So let's not allow them to turn this thread into yet another food fight.
> ...



I think it's worse than slavery. The slaves were aware of their oppression and would try and escape.

When a black person tries to escape dependency, they're demonized and reviled and not only by the masters, but by their former peers as well.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 22, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > What the left wing extremists refuse to admit is, wealth is not a zero sum game. Yes, as you stated at any specific point in time there is a specific amount of wealth. But in the very next moment wealth can go up, or down. The point is, over time wealth can be increased by increased production or decreased by reductions of productions. It is asinine to contend that the rich are taking from the less wealthy. Their investments pay off more, and it does not detract from lessor earning people. It is one of the most basic economic principles. Production causes wealth. It is as simple as that.
> ...


Right wing extremism to me is, if you didn't earn it yourself you can't have. That would mean in the RWer mind that education should be paid for by the individual, there should be no government involvement in providing medical care, or assistance given to the helpless no matter how disabled, and the tendency to be racist and against the equality of women. In my mind, those are extremist RW. Many main stream conservatives believe in some of the same things the basic liberal of today believe, but just like the basic liberal, I cannot condone some of the LWer preferences of taking from the rich just to help those who are simply less wealth. What the LWer will not understand is, there are always poor people, even in a welfare state in which their basic needs are met. LWers tend to see ALL conservatives, or moderates, and basic liberals with the same lens. IE if we are extreme left we are wrong. We could probably converse on the subject for hours, but I think you have my drift.





> I'm not looking for a fight, mind you, and we might even agree depending on what you have in mind.  You strike me as a reasonable fella.
> 
> I'm one of those mad-dog conservatives, you know . . . according to left-wing extremists.  A fascist.  LOL!


Another thing LWers refuse to recognize is, FASCISM is nothing but a form of socialism. Instead of owning the production and distribution, the government controls it. The racist implications of FASCISM as we have observed it is an aberration, and there are many models of socialism which were not racist in basic intent, but they have still failed. There has never been a successful socialist state and in every case of true socialism the government has become autocratic or dictatorial.





> What I am is a liberal, of course.  The term _conservative_ is a cultural label, referring, for the most part, to an American who holds to the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism on which this nation was founded, whether all self-identifying conservatives fully embrace or be fully aware of the foundational doctrines of that tradition, concerning natural law and the state of human nature, or not.  Of course, the conservative label does refer to a different kind of political species in other parts of the world.  Leftist extremists in American don't seem to grasp these subtleties, more at the term's broader connotations.  Contemporary American conservatives generally agree on Locke's labor theory of property at the very least, which is as solid as a rock in my opinion.  Give me some of that old time rugged individualism:  the preservation of private property, the foundation of liberty.


As you have stated so well, the classic liberal was our original economic intention in the US. I will also state that one of the major point of government is to provide for the national defense, law and order, and the protection of personal property - safe from exploitation by the "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY."

I believe in all of the basic and important parts of liberalism to include racial and sex equality, good public education, universal medical care, assistance to those who cannot earn their lively hood on their own, and other typical liberal points of view.

Of the things the dyed in the wool left wing extremists believe that I abhor, is the willingness to follow the propaganda of other extremists instead of thinking for themselves. One example of that is the ignorant contention that JFKs Supply Side reduction in the top marginal tax bracket by 21% and the reduction of corporate taxation are demand side. Nothing can be further from the truth, yet when they bring up exactly the same kind of tax reduction by Reagan or Bush they are terrible SUPPLY SIDE tax reductions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Neither is their absolute hard headed attitude that it was Bush (whom I was not fond of) who caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash. They stick to government sources or semi government sources to claim, "it was all Bush and the CRA had no part in it." That in spite of the fact that more recent studies on the matter, which show their methods of research, in fact conclude that CRA did have a part and that government entities pushed low interest, bad credit and no down payment rules until the bubble broke.

Basically, being liberal DOES NOT MEAN WE HAVE TO BE BLIND TO REALITY, and their blind partisanship keeps the locked into erroneous economic assertions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Pete7469 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



yes I agree. Reagan said, "isn't welfare a form of slavery." Notice how when you say these things the liberals suddenly fall silent. I don't think I"ve heard one step forward to defend how they destroyed the black family. It appears they are not proud of their handy work, but they remain sure they will get it right next time!


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.

And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.
> 
> And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.



Lincoln wanted to end slavery, welfare/ entitlement slavery and dependency we all want to end, but credit card debt is really an individual choice to end or not so not of concern here really.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.
> ...



Within the context of the OP, credit card debt is VOLUNTARY slavery that we all have full choice to make ourselves subject to it or not.  And there is no penalty or other consequences imposed upon us when we choose not to make ourselves subject to that.  So you are right, it is not an issue in this discussion other than to use to make a point.  (Which I think Boedicca was doing.  )

Slavery that allows one person to demand work or services from another was not voluntary on the part of those enslaved and that form of slavery ended with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union bringing Robert E. Lee, and with him the entire Confederacy, to unconditional surrender.  I think nobody posting on this thread now or in the future can find a justification for having that kind of slavery.

So wealth redistribution, under threat of fine or imprisonment, effectively forces one citizen to give up a portion of his ethically and legally earned wealth for the benefit of another for no other reason than the other has less than the person who acquired the wealth.  And it is in no way voluntary.

Tell me why that isn't a form of slavery.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



In theory, I think that rather than feel like a slave you're supposed to feel happy for the opportunity to be charitable toward those in need.

If you feel your money is being used to cripple people and buy votes you're shit out of luck and undoubtedly feeling somewhat like a slave in our liberal la la land.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


The research paper I did for my Ed.S dissertation was solely about the South East Alabama area. I got data from all the rehab counselors in the state service, the high schools in Houston County, AL, and from questionnaires submitted by all of my disabled clients in the county. The questions submitted included those about prior family assistance, current family assistance, the number of workers in the household, whether or not the client was planning to train for a job after completion of the request of assistance from the rehab service plus many more which we don't have the time or space to discuss here. (all in all over 130 survey questions from all of the clients, counselors, school administrations et al. Welfare is absolutely habituating. Yet I don't believe we should simply cut them off. We need to work with recipients and gradually reduce the assistance for all physically, mentally and emotionally capable of working. My null hypothesis was that assistance was NOT habituating, but when subjecting the questions to a Chi Square statistical analysis, it was VERY statistically significantly positive for habituation.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 22, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



All those decisions were made by people not governments.  Obviously what I was saying went way over your head, my fault.  Why did you decide to attack my post?  Was it because the board allows you to attack or something you believed made you do it?  Obviously it is because something you didn't like and you want to make it known.  Now my point about the difference  between morality of the person and that of the government.  

The left wing screams that religion should have no say in the public discourse.  But of course religious beliefs enter into decision making every single day.  Much like their hatred for religion colors their view.  So they lie to themselves and to anyone fool enough to listen.  Moral judgment by PEOPLE are made based on their believe system.  Is there something wrong with that?  How could anything ever be done if their were something wrong with it.  The government, on the other hand, is governed by the will of the people based on the people's set of morality.

The Christian faith certainly wants people to convert and take up the cross there is no doubt that is their goal and that is their calling.  On the other hand the atheist wants NO opposition.  They truly are the ones that want to force people to believe as they.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> . Yet I don't believe we should simply cut them off. We need to work with recipients and gradually reduce the assistance for all physically, mentally and emotionally capable of working.



My understanding is that when Clinton cut them off ending "welfare as we know it" by making it workfare fully half decided they no longer needed welfare.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)*
> ...


What the left wing extremists refuse to understand is, "EVERY PENNY TAKEN OUT OF THE ECONOMY THROUGH TAXES AND BORROWING WHICH IS NOT IMMEDIATELY PAID BACK" reduces the money for the economy to use for production.

If we choose, during specific kinds of economic trouble, to use Keynesian economic theory to stimulate the economy, DO SO BY PUTTING MONEY INTO IMMEDIATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. That will put people to work and give us a finished product which is good for the economy. Throwing $500 billion at the same people who receive $500 billion annually in safety net programs does not buy us out of a recession.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 22, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Not sure that last sentence has anything to do with what I posted and if it does I am not sure how to answer the question.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> DO SO BY PUTTING MONEY INTO IMMEDIATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.



of course we know that does not work! Japan just tried it for 20 years and paved over half the country to no effect whatsoever. What it does is take money from real people using it to improve their standard of living (thus growing the economy in a real way)  and waste it on a road or bridge that didn't need to be replaced anyway. 

Keynes told FDR to do what you say and FDR did it causing the Great Depression to last forever!.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends)*
> ...



Only did it once dummy. Corrected it. You wing nutters are NEVER honest


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

bendog said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...




Yeah, except those with a functioning brain


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, IF you don't use reason and logic I am
> ...



Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.
> ...



Got it, AGAIN you can't refute a damn thing posted instead use ad homs. I'm shocked....


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Don't sweat Obama's Great Recession.
> 
> It'll be over and we'll have full employment when he starts World War III by executive order.  Hey, He don't need Congress - He got a phone and He got a pen.
> 
> Why He's twice the knave Roosevelt was so why act surprised when it happens?




Yes, the economy was humming along creating 18+ million private sector jobs after Dubya and had 4 surpluses. Oh wait no that was Clinton, Dubya left Obama an economy losing 700,000+ jobs a month and contracting 9%+ (3 years growth) in one quarter and handed him a $1.2+ trillion deficit, and 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED tax cuts..


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



can dumbto3 tell us how the massive liberal interference designed to get folks into homes the free market said they could not afford did not cause the crisis?? Afraid to try?

Can he tell us why he puts down Bush when Bush was a liberal who said affordable home programs were a good thing!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



And  I blow your OPINIONS away with ACTUAL FACTS AND DATA TO BACK UP MY CUT AND PASTE, you?   

You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie  doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...




You are an historic ignoramous.  Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).

The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%.  By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%.    Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.

Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Like I said, make everybody pay the exact same tax rate, that is fair.
No write offs, no exclusions.  If somebody makes 5 hundred dollars or 5 million dollars, pay the same percentage.  I don't care if you have kids, a mortgage or a disease, pay the same rate.  I don't care if your income is from blue collar work, white collar work or investments, pay the same rate.
I'm being fair.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

Right On Brothah!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie  doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong



total illiterate!!! they are both huge advocates of free markets and both are/were for cuting taxes all the time and for any reason!


The most recent supply-side proposal, riding a boomlet of popu-
]arity, is a fiat rate income tax.6 Properly termed a degressive tax, it
would apply a fiat rate to all income above some exemption level.
The virtue of this scheme, ]ong advocated by Milton Friedman, is
that it could raise revenue in amounts comparahle to the present
system yet with a rate below 15 percent. This would drastically
reduce marginal tax rates, simplify the tax system, eliminate the tax
shelter game, and improve resource allocation


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



"Neither is their absolute hard headed attitude that it was Bush (whom I was not fond of) who caused the housing balloon and subsequent crash. They stick to government sources or semi government sources to claim, "it was all Bush and the CRA had no part in it." *That in spite of the fact that more recent studies on the matter, which show their methods of research, in fact conclude that CRA did have a part and that government entities pushed low interest, bad credit and no down payment rules until the bubble broke."*



*The Republi-CON Zombie Myth That the Government Forced the Banks to Make Bad Loans *



Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

A THIRTY YEAR OLD LAW CAUSED THIS 2004-2007







*March 4, 2013 

The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud*


heir title is &#8220;Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?&#8221;  Their abstract answers: &#8220;Yes, it did.&#8221;  They claim that their econometric study proves causality &#8211; which is impossible given their methodology.  *The authors were taught from their freshman years that an econometric study of this nature could not prove causality.  Errors this basic and embarrassing demonstrate the crippling grip of the authors&#8217; biases.*


The latest failed effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for Accounting Control Fraud - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives

*NEWER STUDY DEBUNKING AEI TALKLING POINTS*



*January 2013
Debunking the CRA Myth &#8211; Again
*



Since its enactment in 1977, the Community Reinvestment  Act (CRA) has been the subject of extensive debate, which has intensified in  the wake of the subprime crisis. One of the pernicious myths surrounding CRA is that it encouraged banks to make risky loans to low&#8208; and moderate&#8208;income borrowers.

*This argument has been made primarily by conservative  think tanks, like American Enterprise Institute, who find it convenient to  include CRA in their general position against governmental intervention in the  private market.*

But efforts to blame CRA for the most recent crisis reflect a deep misunderstanding of the scope and scale of CRA and its implementation. *Indeed, the &#8220;blame the CRA&#8221; story has been refuted by industry leaders and  researchers time and time again. Unfortunately, this narrative refuses to go  away*


In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and  show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom. 


UNC Center for Community Capital


*YES, DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE OF A BANKSTER WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST*


MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Defend what? False premises distortions and lies from right wingers? lol

Keep up the good work cons, I'm sure black people LOVE to hear how dumb they are from the GOPers


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.
> 
> And DEBT is a slavery for those who have to work for a living...especially high interest credit card debt for which the debtor only makes minimum payments.



*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*


Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Defend what? False premises distortions and lies from right wingers? lol



dear if liberals did not attack and destroy the black family who did? Are you afriad to say??


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

D23:

Thanks for the non sequitur, bub.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



5 year LIFETIME  limit on welfare

*Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them* in last years presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. *Kentuckys Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried. *



Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg



* Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala *A theory of a divided nation 



In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally arent as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all. T*he result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinists paradise.*


Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala | New Republic


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie  doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong
> ...



Which is why congress will never allow it to become reality.  As long as our tax code exists as it is, Congress can manipulate the people. Congress wields uncontrollable power due to their control of tax policy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.
> ...



 Heres what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskinss list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion. 

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesnt. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare  and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Defend what? False premises distortions and lies from right wingers? lol
> ...



Let me guess? LBJ the guy who gave them the civil rights movement that conservatives (not GOPers of yester year), conservatives hated then and now


*PLEASE give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Let me guess? LBJ the guy who gave them the civil rights movement that conservatives (not GOPers of yester year), conservatives hated then and now?




dear if liberals did not attack and destroy the black family who did? Are you afraid to say??


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Right wing garbage. SS/Medicare are FUNDED by taxes directed to those things, YOU KNOW THE 3.6+ TRILLION 'BORROWED' TO HIDE THE COSTS OF REAGAN/BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH?

Yes, people in red states need help. Look around, 1/3rd of southern states are in poverty today!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *PLEASE give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on*



that is way beyond dumb of course!! Conservatives like Aristotle and our Founders are/were for freedom from govt. Liberals are 100% opposed and so spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Now they have elected Obama, a guy with 3 communist parents who voted to left of Bernie Sanders, the only open lib commie in Congress!!!

Wrong side of history?? Do you understand  now?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



PRIVATE SECTOR CAUSED THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE 2004-2007 ALLOWED THE US SUBPRIME BUBBLE TO INFLATE AND BUST. Simple really


*The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. *

MORE HERE


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## alan1 (Jul 22, 2014)

MikeK said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
> ...



I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred.  Your approach from that angle seems more like jealousy than honesty.

In reality, there has always been a 1% richest and and a 99% poorer.  There has also always existed a 1% healthiest and 99% less healthy.  It is even factual that there has always existed a 1% smartest and a 99% less intelligent.  That's just the way math and percentages work.  That doesn't make it evil, it just is.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...






Typing it in all caps doesn't make it true, bub.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *PLEASE give me ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on*
> ...



Founder were the most radical liberals of the day, who WANTED a stronger fed Gov't via the CONSTITUTION over the states rights Articles. TRY ONE POLICY, YOU KNOW WHAT A POLICY IS RIGHT BUBBA?  THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY ON!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Ad homs don't make it false


TRY

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

alan1 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Weird, so from 1945-1980 the top 1% (yes ALWAYS 1%) received 6%-9% of ALL US income, but by 2007 they TOOK 23%. What changed?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

Just because you linked to something on the interwebs, doesn't make it true.

And, I have a policy of not performing clickage on links for which the poster has neither the intellectual honesty nor the intelligence to provide an explanation in his own words as to why they are relevant to the discussion.

Thank you for sharing!


----------



## dblack (Jul 22, 2014)

MikeK said:


> How does one go about "earning" fifty billion dollars?



By convincing people that they'll do good things with that much money.

Mike, if someone acquires that much money honestly, via voluntary trade and investment from others, would you say they've 'earned' it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

alan1 said:


> I would argue that simply amassing large amounts of wealth or income do not indicate anything immoral has occurred.



quite the contrary actually. under capitalism you are free to buy an iphone or not. If you buy it it is because you are better off with the phone than the money. free people deciding whether they are better off, based on their own judgements,  is how we got from the stone to here. THe more money you have the more people you have helped!

If you want to have money under capitalism you've got to invent a product that people prefer over all others available in the world. Its a saintly pursuit if ever there was one!!!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Just because you linked to something on the interwebs, doesn't make it true.
> 
> And, I have a policy of not performing clickage on links for which the poster has neither the intellectual honesty nor the intelligence to provide an explanation in his own words as to why they are relevant to the discussion.
> 
> Thank you for sharing!




Nope, what make it true are the FACTS


*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*


*The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.*










*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. *


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

Are you married to Truthmattersnot?

Or are you a Truthmattersnot sock?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie  doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong
> ...





*DOESN'T REFUTE THE POSIT*

* You CLAIM Rushblo follows Uncle Milties economic theory, though Uncle Miltie doesn't claim tax cuts create more revenues (nor ANY credible economists).. Go figure you are ALWAYS wrong*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree



OMG!! our corporations are moving to China because wages are lower and so they can afford to employ people!! Our corporations are moving off shore, (Walgreen just announced yesterday) to escape the highest taxes in the world.

Labor cost and tax cost obviously matter 100%. We see it every day!! Do you know how slow you have to be not to see it? What is wrong with you?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

I haz a sad that I haz no mo rep an cannot neg D23.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree
> ...





He was born with only half a brain, and that half has been thoroughly Progasized.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Welfare is a form of slavery for those who are dependent upon the government.
> ...



*1. Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.
Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution.* The nations founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word slavery in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slaveryand then admitted he didnt know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.

5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation ? History in the Headlines


----------



## alan1 (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



TOOK?  Your bias is evident in your word choice.
We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology.  That was the change.  Knowledge of history helps me.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, so TAX CUTS HAVE NO EFFECT ON JOBS. I agree
> ...




Got it you agree, tax rates don't effect US jobs. Yes, low tax US rates create jobs in China . Corps have RECORD US profits (where most of their income is from, by far) and yet lowest EFFECTIVE tax burden in 40 years, only lower in the industrialized world by Mexico and Chile. HIGH TAXES? lol

Learn the difference on marg v effective Bubba, grow a brain!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



SURE, THAT was it *shaking head*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



the world shrank. The CEO now sells to the entire world rather than just his own country so he manages a far bigger business and is worth far more on the free market. If baseball spreads to the entire world salaries will go up because there will be more customers to bid up wages. Over your head? Any more quesrions?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Link?

But yes, Dubya/GOP recession is deep AND wide


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Weird, you mean Gov't policy rewards the 'job creators' who make MOST of their money in the US to offshore US jobs WHILE they TAKE much more of the pie AND pay a smaller tax burden on that piece of pie? GOV'T POLICY


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...





FAIR and other 'flat taxes' are the most regressive types of taxes, say economists!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Weird, you mean Gov't policy rewards the 'job creators' who make MOST of their money in the US to offshore US jobs WHILE they TAKE much more of the pie AND pay a smaller tax burden on that piece of pie? GOV'T POLICY



dear, the world shrank thanks to technology not govt policy!! Slow??


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Weird, you mean Gov't policy rewards the 'job creators' who make MOST of their money in the US to offshore US jobs WHILE they TAKE much more of the pie AND pay a smaller tax burden on that piece of pie? GOV'T POLICY
> ...



Yes, you are, and your not honest either....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



changing subject because as a liberal you lack IQ for subject? Lets get you back on track. are you afriad to try?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You did it at least twice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Obamacare.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 22, 2014)

When the rich white far left elitists show that they truly care by donating their entire fortunes to help the people and live with those in the slums that they claim they want to help, then I may take the far left at their word on this subject..


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Links


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



True since most of Obamacares are conservative/GOP ideas, but why is the GOP trying to get rid of it then?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Well it did ask for one, but I am sure that there is a lot more that the far left will deny as part of their religious beliefs.


----------



## dblack (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



It's really all about the left/right crap with you, isn't it?

What do you think about the moral justification for wealth redistribution?

er, wait. Nevermind.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 22, 2014)

MikeK said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that how much I earn is in no way related to the morals of my adult offspring.
> ...



Simple:  produce a product that people are willing to exchange $50 billion plus your expenses for.

Just ask Bill Gates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bute-income-through-taxes-25.html#post9395743

That was on July 6th.

I asked you for a link......you responded here.....on July 7th.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bute-income-through-taxes-27.html#post9397277

I showed here....that you were confused.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bute-income-through-taxes-29.html#post9398092


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*True since most of Obamacares are conservative/GOP ideas*

LOL! Not even close.

*but why is the GOP trying to get rid of it then?*

Because Obamacare sucks and is hurting the economy.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not a single Republican voted for it, yet the entire population of America is now choking on it. Choking on fetid putrid senseless legislation. Are you fuckers happy now?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 22, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Who wrote the 9th and the 10th amendments? Try that one on for size.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Good, you agree, Obamacares WAS a conservative idea originally, that's how far right you wingers have gone!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So YOU can't give ONE policy conservatives have been correct about either? EVER?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




The STRONG federal rights guys? Or you mean the guy who wanted fed laws to have veto rights over states rights, Mr Madison?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Madison had nothing to do with the 9th and 10th Amendments, moron.  They were added after the Constitution was adopted at the insistence of the states.


----------



## dblack (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



So... "yeah"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Reagan's tax cuts, Reagan's military buildup, the Contract with America, opposing Obama.....


----------



## zeke (Jul 23, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...




One out of 315 million. Those are some good odds in Republican lala land.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



James Madison

He is hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the *key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.*


*Father of the Bill of Rights*

Though the idea for a bill of rights had been suggested at the end of the constitutional convention, the delegates wanted to go home and thought the suggestion unnecessary. *The omission of a bill of rights became the main argument of the anti-federalists against the constitution. *Though no state conditioned ratification of the constitution on a bill of rights, several states came close, and the issue almost prevented the constitution from being ratified. Some anti-federalists continued to fight the issue after the constitution had been ratified, and threatened the entire nation with another constitutional 
convention.



*Congress was extremely busy with setting up the new government, most wanted to wait for the system to show its defects before amending the constitution, and the anti-federalist movements (which had demanded a new convention) had died out quickly once the constitution was ratified. *Despite this, Madison still feared that the states would compel congress to call for a new constitutional convention, which they had the right to do.


James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, tripled the debt and produced only 14 milion jobs in 8 years. Carter had 9 million in 4

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Ronnie had a 50% top rate for first 6 years too, that socialist!




Tax Cuts.

_ It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. _

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

NOT sure what 'success' that is

Reagan military buildup? Oh right TRIPLING THE DEBT. Don't give me the MYTH opf the fall of the USSR was on his shoulders after 40  years of other Prez's AND look to Russia today

Those other 2, aren't POLICIES! 


AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?



 The Republican policy, ever since Jefferson and Madison, has been freedom from liberal govt. America has had more freedom than any other country and so became the greatest country in human history. Most agree we are in decline now at a time when liberalism is at its peak having weakened our defenses, bankrupted the govt, destroyed  families and schools , addicted many to welfare entitlements, permanently recessed the economy , and undermined our confidence in freedom. In fact, liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama who had 3 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 23, 2014)

> During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
> 
> On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
> Bill of Rights



Of historical note, it was George Mason of Virginia who was the most vocal and most insistant of the anti-federalists and the rights he had supported for the Virginia constitution had a great deal of influence in the content of the 10 amendments that were ultimately written by James Madison, approved by the legislature, and ratified by the states.

Some legislators were just as concerned about defining the rights out of fear they would be the only rights held sacrosanct while the spirit of the concept of unalienable rights and liberty would be infringed.  They thought the government being restrained to the specific tasks assigned to it in the Constitution would serve the purpose of preserving liberty.  The anti-federalists, however, wanted assurance that the government could never take away their rights.  Ultimately the anti-federalists proved to be the wiser in that regard and even now, the amendments do not always protect us from an ever more bloated, powerful, authoritarian federal government.

The matter of wealth redistribution is one glaring illustration.  Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 23, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.



well, we do always live on a slippery slope. It cant be avoided I'm afraid. I think we'd all love to help the poor with a hand up if it was really a hand up rather than a crippling lifetime entitlement. Republicans want a hand up; Democrats want crippling lifetime entitlements that buy votes and subvert our democracy.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


I guess you don't understand math bozo. 100% of nothing is still nothing. That is the standard answer to those who gloat about doubling or tripling a small number. In 8 years Reagan increased the debt almost $1.4 trillion. Peanuts compared to Bush and even fewer peanuts when compared to Obama. Get your stories straight, you are becoming a laughing stock. If you don't believe me check out this site: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Of course you have to be smart enough to use it. (very unlikely)

Now, relative to the "data" dad2three linked us to: He failed to tell us that in fact the employment figures were going up at the same rate during Ford's administration and they just continued to go up at the same rate during Carter's. Carter was lucky Ford had put us on the rise such that it continued during Carter's. He also didn't look at the continued data which shows employment went down towards the end of Carter (Stagflation Carter caused) and then Reagan came in and employment took off some more. Then Clinton came along and it went up even more.






Dad, you really need to learn how to read graphs so you won't be such a laughing stock.

One questions to all:  *Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*Reagan's tax cuts for the rich, tripled the debt and produced only 14 milion jobs in 8 years.*

Don't forget, expanded GDP (a lot more than Obama), defeated the Soviet Union and strangled inflation.

*Carter had 9 million in 4*

Yeah, he did a bang up job that one.

*It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut*

They were all cut. Hilarious that a left wing goofball quotes Rothbard. Of course he's a bit goofy too.

*Reagan military buildup?*

Yeah, the buildup that led to their fall 10 years after they invaded Afghanistan under Carter.

*Those other 2, aren't POLICIES! *

Contract with America is an entire list of policies, silly. 

Opposing Obama is a great policy. Look at all the damage they're preventing.
No cap and trade, no card check, no endless stimulus boondogles. 
If they could only force him to stop the flood of illegals.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 23, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

It is as stupid to  to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.

Reagan took office with  a high of 10.8 percent  which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Question for all: *Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 23, 2014)

boedicca said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



This is a real gem.

Thank you for addressing this, *boedicca*.   I explained this very same thing to *rightwinger* a few years ago, i.e., the American family's response to double digit inflation _and_ interest rates during the era of Stagflation.  I also explained to him why lower rates of taxation below the prevailing threshold garner more revenue than higher rates:  a slice at a lower rate of taxation from a large pie is bigger than a slice at a higher rate of taxation from a puny pie, and it's the lower rate of taxation that causes the pie to grow in the first place.  Made it simple for him, but, of course, to no avail.  

But there was also another factor that is not evident from *Dad2three's* overly simplistic penchant for "presidential-term" analyses by graph.  Toward the end of Carter's last year in office, the economy was struck by yet another downturn in employment on top of years of stagflation with investment at its lowest level since 1970.  This trend continued through Reagan's first two years in office before the remedial effects of his economic policies kicked in:  an additional negative of roughly 2.6% to 2.8% bled over into Reagan's presidency, a lose that had to be recouped.  By the end of Reagan's first term, however, just two years into the recovery, after peaking at just over 10%, unemployment was back down to roughly 7.3%., 0.2% lower than what it was at the end of Carter's term!

By the way, Reagan inherited an annual inflation rate of roughly 11.83%.  At the end of his _first_ term it was all the way back down to 4%.  Investment soared, and the pressure that pushed the dramatic change in employment demographics eased.    

But I'm still waiting for *Dad2three* to explain why he changed the terms of my observation regarding the growth of wealth into the finite sum of annual income.  I'm still wondering how *Dante*, that master logician, failed to miss that blatantly obvious slight of hand:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-111.html#post9483439



But most of all, we're still waiting for *Dad2three* to explain _why_ the naturally occurring higher returns from investment for the wealthy is evil/unfair.  _How_ that detracts from the earnings of others as if the zero-sum-game fantasy were a reality.  And _why_ it's good/fair to redistribute the wealth of some to others.

Inquiring minds _still_ want to know.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> It is as stupid to  to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.
> 
> Reagan took office with  a high of 10.8 percent  which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.



Indeed.  And don't forget much of Reagan's demand-side spending went to ending the failed policy of Détente and the rebuilding of a dilapidated and demoralized military, and the arming of Europe.  Pay off:  the fall of the Soviet Union.


----------



## ilia25 (Jul 23, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.



There is no such thing as independence. By living in a society, you are depended on other people doing their jobs and following the rules. Otherwise you won't be able to earn your money, it is as simple as that. And, therefore, the society has the moral right to take a part of your income and distribute among other members.

This is not about morality, this is about providing everyone with a decent living standards. Which, in turn, means finding the right level of inequality -- just high enough to give everyone with sufficient incentive to maximize their productivity.


----------



## dblack (Jul 23, 2014)

ilia25 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.
> ...



Yes, yes, yes. Independence, freedom, morality, don't really exist - all are mere '''ILLUSIONS!!!!''' <cue Doug Henning theatrics> 

All that matters is maximizing the productivity of der fatherland!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Question for all: *Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?*



Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question.  I've never asked myself that question.  I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Question for all: *Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?*
> ...



By law, any surplus MUST be used to service the debt, so the answer is no. IF there is a surplus, it will be applied to the debt, and the debt will decline.

In the Clinton years. the idea that there was a surplus, but the debt rose, is simple chicanery. In basic terms, the democrats and their media are blatantly lying.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 23, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Thank you, Uncensored, all is well then.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?
> ...



Got it, YOU are to stupid to actually even try to formulate a policy...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> > During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
> >
> > On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
> > Bill of Rights
> ...




Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't)  won.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LINK TO YOUR LIE. Got it

Economists measure US federal debt via GDP, yes, Reagan tripled US debt, then BOTH Bush's doubled it. Policies started under Dubya (2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS AND 2 UNFUNDED WARS AS WELL AS UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COSTS AS MUCH THIS DECADE AS OBAMACARES, WHICH OF COURSE WAS 100% FUNDED) DRIVE OBAMA'S DEBT

...Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits 

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

*FORD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARTERS 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? I GUESS YOU BLAME CLINTON FOR DUBYA LOSING 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR THEN?*


* One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus? *

YES, ONES A YEARLY BUDGET ONE IS NOT. CRAIG STEINER, LIKE APPARENTLY YOU, IS AN IDIOT!



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton





*How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?*

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% &#8230;. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


*It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.*

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog


----------



## alan1 (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
Moving the goalpost is what I see.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2014)

*08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.


1981         Married Filing Jointly	
Marginal	Tax Brackets	
Tax Rate	Over	But Not Over
0.0%	$0 	$3,400 
14.0%	$3,400 	$5,500 
16.0%	$5,500 	$7,600 
18.0%	$7,600 	$11,900 
21.0%	$11,900 	$16,000 
24.0%	$16,000 	$20,200 
28.0%	$20,200 	$24,600 
32.0%	$24,600 	$29,900 
37.0%	$29,900 	$35,200 
43.0%	$35,200 	$45,800 
49.0%	$45,800 	$60,000 
54.0%	$60,000 	$85,600 
59.0%	$85,600 	$109,400 
64.0%	$109,400 	$162,400 
68.0%	$162,400 	$215,400 
70.0%	$215,400 	-


1982	Married Filing Jointly	
Marginal	Tax Brackets	
Tax Rate	Over	But Not Over
0.0%	$0 	$3,400 
12.0%	$3,400 	$5,500 
14.0%	$5,500 	$7,600 
16.0%	$7,600 	$11,900 
19.0%	$11,900 	$16,000 
22.0%	$16,000 	$20,200 
25.0%	$20,200 	$24,600 
29.0%	$24,600 	$29,900 
33.0%	$29,900 	$35,200 
39.0%	$35,200 	$45,800 
44.0%	$45,800 	$60,000 
49.0%	$60,000 	$85,600 
50.0%	$85,600 	-


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> It is as stupid to  to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.
> 
> Reagan took office with  a high of 10.8 percent  which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.




YES, REAGAN TRIPLED US DEBT, TOOK US FROM LARGEST CREDITOR TO DEBTOR NATION!!! 

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% &#8230;.* Reagan sworn in.*
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
*07/1981 - 7.2%*
*08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
*11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.*
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


*It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.*

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
> 
> Reagan cut taxes for everyone.
> 
> ...






 The Myths of Reaganomics 

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? *Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?
*
*The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. *The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. 


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



"We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology.  That was the change.  Knowledge of history helps me"

THAT was the REASON for the chart wing nuttter!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES  HUH?*


I.  Deficits, Surpluses and Debt: Definitions and A Brief History

A budget deficit occurs when the government spending exceeds government revenue in a given time period, usually one year:
deficit = government spending - revenue, where spending > revenue.

*A budget surplus occurs when government spending is less than government revenue in a given time period:*
s*urplus = revenue - spending, where revenue > spending.
*
In measuring deficits and surpluses, the government uses its fiscal year (October 1 - September 30), not its calendar year.

*The national debt is a running total of all deficits minus all surpluses*


*Note that the deficit and the debt are NOT the same thing. Journalists and politicians confuse them all of the time, but you know better, now don't you? *








From 1970 to 1997, the federal government ran a deficit every single year.  *Starting in 1998, the federal government began running surpluses.* *In the 1980s the size of deficits exploded, greatly increasing the national debt: *






Chapter 12: Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt



*I LOVE MAKING CONS LOOK FOOLISH, OF COURSE THAT'S NOT TO DIFFICULT...*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > M.D. Rawlings said:
> ...



Ignorant of yearly budgets versus debt huh? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > It is as stupid to  to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.
> ...





Yeah, Putin said thanks, paid off well


*Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that.* Historians mostly credit forty years of &#8220;Containment&#8221; by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt&#8217;s Postwar concluded: &#8220;


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


By golly, I think you've got it. Yes!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Want to know what? YOU are a simpleton and LIAR?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Question for all: *Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?*
> ...


I didn't think you would have a bit of problem.  And uncensored has it right as well. The question was not really aimed at you or him. I was curious how our resident left wing extremist thought about it.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > > During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
> ...



Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



What lie are you talking about? And why did you stop at Feb 1984? Afraid the truth would prove you wrong? It did. Your BLS link told us the real truth and by the time Reagan's term was up unemployment was down to 5.4%. Explain that away left wing extremist.

BTW, who is Craig Steiner? Whoever he is, an annual budget CANNOT BE IN SURPLUS IF THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES UP. And I don't need back up from RW or LW stooges to understand that simple truism. All one has to do is look at the US Treasury link I gave you earlier and READ TO UNDERSTAND the description of what a real surplus/deficit is.

The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget. 

You can think of the *total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses*. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​Borrowing money from ANY TRUST FUND and counting it as receipts to "show" a surplus is voodoo accounting. It is an absurd lie that Clinton had a true surplus. His surplus was only "voodoo accounted" by adding BORROWED MONEY from both off budget AND on budget trust funds as if they were receipts and the national debt went up EVERY SINGLE FISCAL YEAR. As uncensored said very clearly, it was solely chicanery, by suggesting one calendar year having a surplus equaled to a FISCAL SURPLUS. The fact of the matter is, ALL deficits and all surpluses when bounced together determine if the debt goes up, or down. The debt has not gone down since Eisenhower.

Your problem left wing extremist is, YOU ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND BUDGETS AND ECONOMICS and you are only a stooge for the left wing extremists parroting their propaganda. Go ahead, work for your puppeteer.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...



*" part of those subsidies"*

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel *subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually* yet these *dont even include costs borne by taxpayers* related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

I*nternationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies.* This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
*In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line. *


Yet, *some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.   *

*
The Worst of the Worst*


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, *worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade.* Those are laid out in the table below from a *Congressional Research Service *report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.











America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


*Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion)*: Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools.* But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.*


*Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion):* Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion.* So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest. 
*

*The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion):* In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries.* But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas. *


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



So Ronie took US to 5.4% and Clinton increased taxes (revenues to pay for Ronnie's spending) and took unemployment to 4% when Dubya took over 






Got it, you DON'T know what a yearly budget is. $1,000,000 REVENUE AND $900,000 SPENDING IS  SURPLUS, regardless OF DEBT


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?


----------



## dblack (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



That sure is a graph.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Question for all: *Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?*



*A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. *The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. *The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.*

*Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit.* This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. T*he principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998,  $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000*.  So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...


Good! All costs of doing business should be deductible.





> and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools.* But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.*
> 
> 
> *Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion):* Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.)


Depreciation of the value of equipment and resources are a good thing. They have a right to that allowance. It is a reduction in taxes, not a subsidy.





> Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion.* So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.
> *


Have you any idea how many "very big" oil companies have gone bust in the last100 years because their resource has run out or their cost of discovery and drilling have destroyed them? 





> *The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion):* In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries.


*They should be. In addition our economy has not been ravaged by China. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/This study proves that for every job sent overseas (to include China) we get 1.72 new jobs in the US. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas. *[/QUOTE]The oil industry works on a lower % of profit than the left wing propaganda site gets for publishing their BS. Why would you want to make the oil industry even less profitable? Do you honestly believe they would be as willing to risk so much money searching and drilling without profit? Only the stupids (IOW you) believe that the oil industry should be a non-profit business. The facts are, oil companies pay too much tax now, and paying less tax is not subsidizing a low profit % industry.

Your puppet master's propaganda is not even close to reality. Have you ever tried to think for yourself? Does your "boss" tell you when to pee?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 23, 2014)

Daddy boy, I can't believe how truly ignorant you are.


----------



## Dante (Jul 23, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > what a drag to scroll through
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


The oil industry works on a lower % of profit than the left wing propaganda site gets for publishing their BS. Why would you want to make the oil industry even less profitable? Do you honestly believe they would be as willing to risk so much money searching and drilling without profit? Only the stupids (IOW you) believe that the oil industry should be a non-profit business. The facts are, oil companies pay too much tax now, and paying less tax is not subsidizing a low profit % industry.

Your puppet master's propaganda is not even close to reality. Have you ever tried to think for yourself? Does your "boss" tell you when to pee?[/QUOTE]

* Good! All costs of doing business should be deductible. *


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

The success rate of striking oil (or gas) is about 85%, which means producers are spending less on exploring wells that won&#8217;t become profitable.

Under the Obama  proposal, all IDCs would be capitalized and amortized as depreciable or depletable property, depending on the nature of the cost incurred, in accordance with generally applicable rules.




* 'Depreciation of the value of equipment and resources are a good thing. They have a right to that allowance. It is a reduction in taxes, not a subsidy. ' *


 Under the cost depletion method, the basis recovery for a taxable year is computed on the unit of production method proportional to the *exhaustion of the property during the year.*

Because percentage depletion is computed without regard to the taxpayer&#8217;s tax basis in the depletable property, a taxpayer (OIL CORP) may continue to claim percentage depletion after all the expenditures incurred to acquire and develop the property have been recovered and the property&#8217;s adjusted basis has been reduced to zero.


The Administration&#8217;s proposal would repeal the percentage depletion deduction with respect to oil and gas wells for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. Thereafter, all taxpayers would only be permitted to report a deduction for cost depletion to recover their adjusted basis, if any, in oil and gas wells.




http://www.bakerbotts.com/file_upload/Update201304Tax-ObamaAdminOilandGasTaxProposals2.htm


*There is no need to subsidize (TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER BIZ'S)  an industry that is already booming.**


'This study proves that for every job sent overseas (to include China) we get 1.72 new jobs in the US'

FOR THE SECOND TIME, STOP LYING AND READ WHAT THE STUDY ACTUALLY SAYS, HINT IT'S A PRO IMMIGRATION STUDY


More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. 

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post




Big Oil's most profitable quarter ever: $51.5 billion



Big Oil's most profitable quarter ever: $51.5 billion - ABC News*


----------



## Rikurzhen (Jul 24, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.



Um, they earned it.

The largest category of subsidy that the Feds give to oil companies is to buy their oil and store it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

The next largest subsidy category is the farm fuel tax exemption. Fuel taxes are based on the rationale that the roads must be paid for, well farm vehicles consume almost all of their fuel on farm-land, so they get a tax break from government.

The third largest subsidy category is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. When oil companies sell home heating oil to poor people they get a check from the Feds for the difference between market pricing and the price the oil was sold for to the poor people to heat their homes in winter.

The irony here is that I really doubt that you favor eliminating these subsidies once we get into the nitty-gritty details. Do you want poor people to freeze in their homes because they can't afford the heating oil to keep them warm during the winter? 

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.[/QUOTE]


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 24, 2014)

Because so many people are getting pissed about redistribution the IRS has ordered a fleet of drones.  See, no redistribution at mere gunpoint anymore.....

But how can _forcibly_ separating anyone from that which is rightfully theirs be considered "moral" in ANY way?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Question for all: *Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?*
> ...



Deficits occur when the government spends more than it takes in.

So then why does the government always spend more than it takes in?

It's not that it doesn't take enough from us it's that it spends too much.

And the occasional surplus has not reduced the debt at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
> ...



*The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. *

The listed brackets before and after show that taxes were cut.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



*But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.*

There could be zero risk. So what? Drilling expense is still a business expense.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The Constitution didn't give us those programs.  Democrats wiping their ass on the Constitution is how we got them.


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Plenty of Republicans supported, and still support, these programs.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't)  won.



Which is why we have no Bill of Rights.

Oh, wait....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
> Moving the goalpost is what I see.



He doesn't even know the rules of the game, he is moving the goal posts for a baseball game...

Cut & Paste, what a waste...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES  HUH?*



Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES  HUH?*
> ...



I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I'd hate to see the graph that shows that Dem Prez's increase. Makes Bush look like a piker.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?



THIS is why you only cut & paste.

When you attempt to defend your ideas on your own, you say the STUPIDEST things...


----------



## Listening (Jul 24, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Unfortunately, the GOP has been just as complicit in letting them happen.

A real disappointment.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


It is truly difficult to understand just how ignorant you are, EVEN WITH YOUR OWN POSTS AND LINKS. Look again at that last graph you posted. It tells us that the top earners earned 538% more money during the period covered but still pays the same old % of taxes. Are you even aware that that line alone tells us that the monetary quantity of taxes paid is also 528% more than was paid before this period of time? You need to learn to UNDERSTAND the graphs you post, most of which prove exactly the opposite of which you thought they said.

And in reference to Carter's job creation, he left over 9% unemployment for Reagan with stagflation which was crippling to our employment figures. Before Reagan was done, the rate was down to 5.3%.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 24, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.



You and all your lemmings thanking you would have to write Obama about that one... Why didn't he and the Dem Senate and Congress do something about it when they had a super majority for 2 years, or even under Bush when they held the house and Senate for 2 years (Obama included). 

Oh, because you only care when a Republican is President.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2014)

Listening said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge.

The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.

Granted, the democrats are full blown AIDS.

But that doesn't make the GOP pleasant, by any means.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 24, 2014)

Morality of Wealth Redistribution??  
Wealth Redistribution = Theft
There is no excuse or moral high ground for theft.
Yes, it is just that simple.


----------



## hazlnut (Jul 24, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?



Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time.  Now they get it through complicated trusts and off-shore holdings.


There really is no such thing as "Wealth" redistribution.

Ask any welfare recipient if they feel "wealthy".

The wealthy benefit from our system of government and economy, specifically the relationship between the public and private sector.   They pay more, because they benefit more.

Maintaining a standard of living for the poor and working poor prevents a breakdown in the system during recessions and downturns (market corrections) - safety nets are the result of lessons learned from the French revolution and Great Depression.  

It not just about the rich protecting their way of life and the market system, it's about a national moral identity - we are a compassionate country.  We don't allow the elderly to just lie on the streets and die, hence medicare.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



*Before we had a death tax, children of wealthy individuals used to get money they didn't earn all the time.*

OMG! That's awful! Parents giving their money to their kids.


----------



## Desperado (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Amazing that those parent wanted to give their kids a better life than what the parent had.
Unlike Phillip Seymour Hoffman who  didn't leave a dime to his children.  Claims he did not want them to grow up to be spoiled brats.
Philip Seymour Hoffman Didn't Leave His Kids a Dime. Good for Him. | RYOT News


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



No problem. I was just having fun with it too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 24, 2014)

Forcing people to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation is involuntary servitude, and every bit as immoral.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 24, 2014)

How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person  has a chance to inherit it?

Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.

Never mind all the millions of people who had good jobs in all those businesses that had been handed down from fathers to sons, etc.  With all that lovely inheritance money the government can take are of them too.

Does anybody see how silly some of these arguments have been?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Your chart in the above affirms the very history I related in the above regarding the rise and fall of the unemployment rate during Reagan's FIRST term, though your numbers are a few tenths of a percent higher.  Mine are from memory.  Close enough.  You just don't know the history, youngster, and can't grasp the larger complexities of the decade of Stagflation, not to mention the energy crisis, while you stupidly expect economic reforms to have an immediate impact.  

"Oh, look, the president signed it," said the double-digit rates of inflation and interest.  "Whew!  We can change now and get that unemployment rate down at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow.  Get that memo out right away, and send a copy to Carter." 

LOL!

You're a boorish little twit and a bit of a sociopath, I suspect.    

Once again:

But I'm still waiting for *Dad2three* to explain why he changed the terms of my observation regarding the growth of wealth into the finite sum of annual income.  I'm still wondering how *Dante*, that master logician, failed to miss that blatantly obvious slight of hand:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-111.html#post9483439



But most of all, we're still waiting for *Dad2three* to explain _why_ the naturally occurring higher returns from investment for the wealthy is evil/unfair.  _How_ that detracts from the earnings of others as if the zero-sum-game fantasy were a reality.  And _why_ it's good/fair to redistribute the wealth of some to others. 

Inquiring minds _still_ want to know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person  has a chance to inherit it?
> 
> Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.
> 
> ...



*How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person  has a chance to inherit it?*

I agree. I'd much rather some undeserving asshole in DC gets to spend my money instead of my kids.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Jul 24, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person  has a chance to inherit it?
> 
> Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.
> 
> ...



To be or not to be.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



What a giant load of horse manure.  Taking from some and giving to others is exactly how the government redistributes wealth.  You have to be a complete fucking moron not to understand that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 24, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> ...


He's not a moron - he's a liar.
He KNOWS what he says is wrong but he says it anyway.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> ...



Well yeah, you're talking to the troll known as "Rightwinger..."


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 24, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES  HUH?*


I think it is blatantly obvious that you do not understand the connection between deficits and the debt. Yes, there is a difference, but they are closely related. . I. below is correct.





> I.  Deficits, Surpluses and Debt: Definitions and A Brief History
> 
> A budget deficit occurs when the government spending exceeds government revenue in a given time period, usually one year:
> deficit = government spending - revenue, where spending > revenue.
> ...


*Most certainly, I do know better.*


> From 1970 to 1997, the federal government ran a deficit every single year.  *Starting in 1998, the federal government began running surpluses.* *In the 1980s the size of deficits exploded, greatly increasing the national debt: *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have made yourself look foolish by quoting a web site which is lying through their teeth. Now, if you want to see the facts let us go to the US Treasury which partially confirms some of what you said, but clearly proves that some of it is not true. Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)All of your quote which I bolded is correct.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public. 

The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​Thus at the end of the fiscal year, the debt goes up because of accumulated deficits, and the fact that off budget surplus MUST BE GIVEN TO THE TREASURY IN RETURN FOR DEBT TO THE TRUST FUNDS.

It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus. The extremist yahoos like to look at the Calendar year in which there was a surplus but overlook the fact that before the end of the fiscal year there was a deficit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus.



not only that but what Clinton did he did because of Newt! Newt made Clinton lie and say "the era of big govt is over" and he made him somewhat fiscally responsible. A president is not the govt!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



yes, this is because the liberals destroyed the family and schools rendering most unfit to hold middle class jobs. Then they shipped 40 million jobs off shore with liberal unions and the highest tax rates in the world. 

that is way way too complicated for a liberal to understand. Sorry


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



And why, do you suppose, we're not doing anything about that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> ...



why?  liberals are not about to admit they destroyed the American family and its schools nor are they about to admit their unions and taxes drove 40 million jobs off shore.


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 24, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



liberals caused recent income inequality by destroying family etc!!  do you understand now?


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



Any wealth the middle class has lost has been lost to the IRS. Sure the wealthy have accumulated even more money, but they provided a service or a tangible product (wealth) in return for it. They have *created* wealth by creating a product from raw materials and a good idea.

The Waltons didn't "take" anything from you. You went to their business and picked out a product, put it in a cart and willingly paid them for it. Or do you think they should be paying YOU to cart away that 60" plasma TV?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



My aunt used to give me $20 on my birthday.  I didn't earn that.  We can't allow people to be giving their dirty filthy money away.  It's unseemly.


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I was commenting on the way tax and regulatory law are manipulated to favor certain 'interests' - rightwinger seems to get that, but continues to support the Democrats, who refuse to do anything about it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



who supports Democrats?


----------



## dblack (Jul 25, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



rightwinger.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



got it. liberals are not thinkers so they contradict themselves all the time.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 25, 2014)

Its what's for dinner in Acadiana:





 and 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Jambalaya, Rice, Crawfish Gumbo, Crawfish Bisque, Corn Bread, Crawfish Etoufee.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 26, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


I see that you have devolved to random insults.
I find it difficult to carry on intelligent conversation with people that seem to think insults are a part of intelligent conversation.  I guess that is my weakness.


----------



## alan1 (Jul 26, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Congress actually controls spending more so than the president.
The largest deficit ever in US history was when Barack Obama was President and congress was controlled by democrats.  Look it up if you don't believe me.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2014)

Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?

We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.

We are not talking about voluntary charity or the merits of it.

We are talking about a government authority literally confiscating what somebody else lawfully and ethically acquired and giving it to somebody else who did nothing to merit it.

And what is the difference between that and legalized theft?


----------



## alan1 (Jul 26, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?
> 
> We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.
> 
> ...



If I personally take ten dollars from you and give it to somebody that needs ten dollars I am a thief.  If I get my government to perform the exact same act I am a caring person known as a liberal,  There is no difference, except one is legal and one is not.


----------



## zeke (Jul 26, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?
> 
> We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.
> 
> ...




Are you telling me that a government agent, representative or what ever you want to call them, came to your house, place of work or whatever, took your money or your property and gave them to someone else while you watched or you were at least aware of who got your stuff.

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## dblack (Jul 26, 2014)

zeke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?
> ...



No. Government can't be bothered with pick up and delivery. They demand that we send it to them, and pay our own shipping.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 26, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


What Daddy refuses to recognize is, when there is a surplus IT BY LAW MUST PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Clinton did not pay down the debt. Therefore THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

It amazes me how ignorant some people are. Obama has been the president over the largest increase in debt in our history. $6.7 trillion in his first 6 years. Even Bush, as bad as he was, increased the debt by less than $6.7 trillion over 98years.


----------



## zeke (Jul 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Whew. Must be a bad analogy for paying taxes.

Yea I hated it bad when my tax dollars are/were being given to warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people. Along with the other poster. I understand. I was poor once myself. People just don't like it when you are poor. Makes em think that they could have been there themselves and people don't like that either. Makes em feel guilty for not helping. Or caring.

Hey but at least the government hasn't taken my computer and given it away.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 26, 2014)

zeke said:


> You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.



we hate it only because it cripples the poor rather than helps them, and because it creates more of them mostly to create a dependent population of liberal voters. PLease don't be a morality bigot who thinks you're superior because you suppoprt welfare.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 26, 2014)

zeke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?
> ...



What difference does it make if it is done surreptitiously or at gunpoint or via threat of fine or imprisonment?  What difference does it make if we watch a crime being committed?  Does it make it any more or less of a crime?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 26, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.
> ...


I support welfare....TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T  HELP THEMSELVES. I stated earlier a study proves welfare habitation when it is extended to those who are capable of making their own way but prefer not to.


----------



## dblack (Jul 26, 2014)

zeke said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



So do I.



> You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people. Along with the other poster. I understand.



You really don't. I actually believe caring the less fortunate is the right thing to do. But people have different opinions on who should be helped and how much. I don't think they should go to jail because their opinions are different than mine.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 27, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> ]I support welfare....TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T  HELP THEMSELVES.



even that may be too generous though since we all get old to a point where we cant help ourselves. If you agree to put them all on welfare you encourage them to stop saving for their old age and to leech off others.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 27, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > ]I support welfare....TO PEOPLE WHO CAN'T  HELP THEMSELVES.
> ...


I don't really think most elderly need help as much as the physically and mentally disabled, and I believe we should help them. The elderly have SS and MC and usually extended family.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 27, 2014)

The "conservatives" will argue that wealth redistribution is  immoral *EXCEPT* when the federal government redistributes wealth in order to support and defend the *Palestinian Holocaust.*

.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 28, 2014)

Used to be that natural selection would weed out the weak but modern medicine keeps the weak alive and the gene pool goes to Hell.  In time everybody will be unable to survive in any natural way because the pool will be so screwed up.

It's sorta like that with redistribution - survival of the least fit.

A greater threat to humanity than a Global Warmists wildest dream.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Um, what law mandates this? 

Worse, even if such a law existed (which I definitely question), the following of it doesn't mean that a surplus didn't exist. 

Both your conclusion and the conclusion that followed it appear to be invalid.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 28, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Used to be that natural selection would weed out the weak but modern medicine keeps the weak alive and the gene pool goes to Hell.  In time everybody will be unable to survive in any natural way because the pool will be so screwed up.
> 
> It's sorta like that with redistribution - survival of the least fit.
> 
> A greater threat to humanity than a Global Warmists wildest dream.



So let me see if I follow your logic. The poor are the 'least fit'. And thus, shouldn't survive for the benefit of humanity and the gene pool?

Does that cover it?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 28, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> The "conservatives" will argue that wealth redistribution is  immoral *EXCEPT* when the federal government redistributes wealth in order to support and defend the *Palestinian Holocaust.*
> 
> .



The great debate on whether or not the rich were going to get richer and the poor, poorer has been decided: yes. 

Now the great debate is whether or not this is how its supposed to be.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Jul 28, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Um, what law mandates this?
> 
> Worse, even if such a law existed (which I definitely question), the following of it doesn't mean that a surplus didn't exist.
> 
> Both your conclusion and the conclusion that followed it appear to be invalid.



This is Accounting 101. Here's a simple way for you to think about this issue.

Where did the surplus go? If it was spent on programs, then it wasn't a surplus, it was an expense. If the surplus wasn't expensed, then what happened to it? Or more generally, what do you imagine a government does with a surplus on its books? If they take in $5 billion more than they spend, where does that $5 billion go?

Pipe up in the comments if you want me to answer the questions for you.


----------



## zeke (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > You must be one of those that hate it when your tax dollars are given to poor people.
> ...



Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope? Broken leg? What part of them is crippled?

How about the number of people who receive welfare that vote. Do you have any reliable figures for the number of welfare people who vote? I ask because someone who has been crippled like you say is not likely to give a fuck about any election. Hell, they can barely get out of bed being crippled.

Morality bigot? What the fuck. Wasn't it you or one of your buddies who were just saying that  YOU/THEY support welfare? For the "right kinds" of people? Are they "morality bigots"? Must be.

Besides that, I would change welfare much more drastically than I have heard any others propose.

And I am probably one of just a few on here that benefited from "welfare" as a kid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



*Do you have any evidence of this "crippling" action that comes about when a person receives welfare? Are these people crippled because they have no job skills? No money?
No motivation? No hope? *

Look at the multi-generational welfare recipients. Is that an accident?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 28, 2014)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> 
> Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.


Care to detail the money that oil companies get that they didn't earn.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Welfare has been capped at 5 years (lifetime)  for over 15+ years now


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...




They get SPECIFIC tax deductions that benefit ONLY their industry, one that costs US billions to the treasury as their profits hit record highs!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Got ir, to ignorant to understand the difference of a YEARLY budget with debt

Yes, Clinton had 4 years more money coming in than going out. FOUR SURPLUS BUDGETS (3 after he vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut)... 

Yes, Obama was handed an economy that was growing and had tax surpluses estimated to pay off the debt within 15 years. Oh wait, no that was Dubya


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jul 28, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> The "conservatives" will argue that wealth redistribution is  immoral *EXCEPT* when the federal government redistributes wealth in order to support and defend the *Palestinian Holocaust.*
> 
> .




When six million Palestinians are killed, then you can call it a holocaust. This doesn't even qualify as genocide. Stop throwing words around that you have no idea the meaning of.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Um, what law mandates this?
> ...



BUDGET SURPLUS. More money conning in than going out? Democratic budget surplus. See LBJ and Clinton...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Well the brain damaged, like you, generally do not!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



A fact isn't an insult *wing nutter!!!*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

alan1 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually Prez policies are #1, IF you are honest. Of course you are a conservative, so you aren't!


*Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits*









Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration  tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan  accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion).  *By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half  over $8 trillion  of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies*


Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 28, 2014)

And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
Hell there are tax incentives to stay poor. I know people who stop work just short of losing their EITC.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?
> 
> We are not talking about shared services here--the services that benefit all, rich and poor alike.
> 
> ...



It's based on *SOCIETY*. We as a society have DECIDED taxation funds US and morally are OK with it. If you aren't listen to Ben:

All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. *He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it*.  Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
> Hell there are tax incentives to stay poor. I know people who stop work just short of losing their EITC.



RECORD profits?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...





STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million  PER person is excluded. WAY less than 1% pay estate taxes

 Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
*If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person  has a chance to inherit it?
> 
> Or let's just dismantle the business, raze the property, and dispose of the assets of every proprietor who passes on so that each subsequent generation has to start from scratch as the first American generation did.
> 
> ...



Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

* If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*





Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES  HUH?*
> ...



Got it you are to dumb to get the difference in a yearly budget versus debt

*YEARLY BUDGET IS MONEY COMING IN THAT YEAR VERSUS EXPENSES GOING OUT THAT YEAR. NOTHING MORE..,.*


Zero to do with debt...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > It is patently stupid to say Clinton ever had an end of a fiscal year surplus.
> ...



Sure, it was Newt, that why AFTER Clinton's first surplus the GOP passe a $700+ billion tax cut Clinton had to veto to get 3 more *shaking head*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> ...



Simple. GOP have been taken over by sociopaths, we call them conservatives/libertarians!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Nope, it's an expense afforded to THAT industry only, WHEN that industry makes record profits and is over 100+ years old...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...





SCOTUS has repeatedly said you are full of shit


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yet conservatives fought EVERYONE of the programs and still do...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't)  won.
> ...



Sure, part of the STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T THING


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > hazlnut said:
> ...



*STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded. *

I know. Just awful!!!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES  HUH?*
> ...



Got it fuktard, you don't understand the yearly budget is nothing more than revenues coming in and expenses going out, and under Clinton we had more coming in than going out 4 times (3 after he vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut)..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > How about we just make it so that the government acquires the estate of everybody who dies so there is no danger some undeserving person  has a chance to inherit it?
> ...



*Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head**

Everything belongs to the state!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



True, it should be about $2 million per person


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



No, most of the money was made in Somalia, Gov't and US society didn't benefit those 'job creators' at all right Bubba?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



It's true, only industries that drill get to deduct drilling expenses.

Just as every other business gets to deduct their legitimate business expenses. No matter what their level of profit. So?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



It should be unlimited.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate! 

*WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE! *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Kochs and Waltons made money in Somalia? Please explain further.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Opinion.

Most of the US Founders thought would lead US back to an Aristocracy we overthrew. Go figure conservatives prefer that system again...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*



right!!!! we can't have parents giving money to their kids and giving them any other advantages either like super high IQ's, for example. We need a Nazi liberal govt to step in with guns to even the playing field against parenting!

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note 
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They could deduct the expenses as other industries do, BUT what they get today is a SPECIAL (faster/more inclusive)   deduction other industries do not get!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Logic and reasoning as well as snark escapes you. I'm shocked


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I don't cry when families get to keep their money.
The idea of the government not getting every single dollar when someone dies does not make me sad.

How much will the government get when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet die?

It seems they aren't afraid to deny the government of money either.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Sure, because Dubya left US in such a sweet spot with 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eyes could see...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I'd have no problem with every business getting an immediate 100% deduction of expenses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



So they didn't make money in Somalia? 

It's hard to tell your jokes from your usual idiotic comments.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Makes Bush look like a piker.


----------



## zeke (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LMAO. You'd have no problem if no one ever paid an income tax again.

But you can't say what would happen as a consequence of doing that.

And that's in itself is a problem.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> *WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE! *



whats moral is that everyone pay the same price for govt just like they pay the same price in the supermarket. Does the liberal want  the rich to pay more in the supermarket too? 

Also, in a free county if you don't want Steve Jobs to have so much money convince people not to buy his products, not to use govt guns to steal the money back.
Suppose the rich got together and used govt to steal back their products after they were purchased?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



IF they did, they probably would be as rich as you... Considering how well libertarian philosophy REALLY works!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I'm sure they'd agree the government is more responsible when it comes to spending money.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



We haven't decided any such thing.  The phrase "we are a society" is absolutely meaningless."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Immediate deduction of expenses would not eliminate payment of income taxes. Sorry.


----------



## dblack (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Yes morals. The morality of wealth redistribution. I'm not interested in your left/right nonsense.



> WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!



The question of the thread is whether that tax structure is truly moral, or simply endorsed by consensus.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > *WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE! *
> ...



All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. *He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.*

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



No, they didn't agree on that at all, and they certainly didn't agree that allowing government to take it was the proper solution.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> ]If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.[/SIZE][/B]



dumbto3 strikes again!


"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note 
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.


----------



## zeke (Jul 28, 2014)

Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.

Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The consequence would be that America would thrive.  That's what happened before we had an income tax.  

Libturds behave as if America didn't exist before the Great Depression.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Society decides morality. Death penalty, feeding and clothing the poor and meek, etc...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We had a few VERY rich and MANY, MANY, MANY poor! 

Look to almost any third world nation for current examples!


----------



## dblack (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



We do. But it isn't simply a matter of majority rule. Or is that how you see it?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > ]If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.[/SIZE][/B]
> ...



""To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Notein Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816."





The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

*George Washington*, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued,* "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."*

The second president,* John Adams, feared "monopolies of land"* would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. *Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."*

*James Madison*, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored *"the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."*

*Alexander Hamilton*, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, *"whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."*

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


Benjamin Franklin: All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. *He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.*



*"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson*

*
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Nope, simple minds are what conservatives use


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Resorting to your favourite logical fallacy again, the _appeal to authority_, I see.  Benjamin Franklin was a wise man, but he was not infallible.  For one thing, his initial premise is wrong.  Private property existed prior to government.  Since his premise is wrong, his conclusion is wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.
> 
> Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.



Hey Zeke, if Obama thinks the drug benefit costs too much, he is free to push for repeal.
If he thinks the wars cost too much, he is free to push for their end.
If he feels the people got to keep too much of their income because of the Bush tax cuts, he is free to tell them the government needs their money more than they do.

He is free to whine about the unfairness of it all and pretend he has no power at all, but that would make him a whiny bitch. Don't you think?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The Founders felt YOU were full of it


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.
> 
> Did those things influence Obama's ability to manage the finances of the country? Put him in the hole before he unpacked his bags now didn't it? Be honest.



Every president has to pay the obligations incurred by previous presidents.  Since you imbeciles don't let Bush off the hook for such obligations, you have no justification for letting Obama off the hook.  Furthermore, part of what Obama ran on was reducing the deficit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



*The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so*. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. *They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
*
*All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention.* Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: *But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.* He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## dblack (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Alright. So, we can reasonably discuss the morality of a policy regardless of whether it is the status quo, right?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nope, haven't voted for a GOPer in 30 years!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Discuss all day long, but to SOMEHOW question taxes, which is the way the US has CREATED the worlds largest middle class (that conservative policy has shrunk the past 40 years by 10%) and created the functioning US society , as 'morality' is just bullshit!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Todd. When Obama came into office, did he still have to pay for the wars and the prescription drug plan the other guy left him with. Along with a lot less income from the tax cuts and the economic downturn.
> ...



Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues, 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eye could see...


*HONESTY, TRY IT!!!*


*David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country *


(*Reagans deficit policies*) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, *bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy* that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy, Stockman wrote. 

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


----------



## dblack (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



We're not questioning taxes. We're questioning the _practice_ of using taxes for the purpose of redistributing wealth, rather than an equitable means of financing government.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Repeating a fallacy in a larger font doesn't make it any less a fallacy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



actually capitalism created the middle class not tax welfare of some kind! How on earth could taxes, say ,create an auto manufacturer that employs millions at middle class wages?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Hardly.  The fact that you don't question something doesn't make it moral.  Slavery existed for thousands of years prior to the Civil War, and no one questioned it. 

Taxes did not create the middle class.  Capitalism did.  Taxes did not create the automobile, the telephone, the television or any of the countless other modern conveniences we enjoy today.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Would YOU love to get a 538% increase in income and pay the same percentage in taxes? lol


*
CARTER 9% UNEMPLOYMENT? LOL*


Carter 1977

Jan 7.5%
Feb 7.6
March 7.4
April 7.2
May 7.0
June 7.2
July 6.9
Aug 7.0
Sept 6.8
Oct 6.8
Nov 6.8
Dec 6.4

1978
Jan 6.4
Feb 6.3
March 6.3
Apr 6.1
May 6.0
Jun 5.9
July 6.2
Aug 5.9
Sep 6.0
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1979
Jan 5.9
Feb 5.9
Mar 5.8
Apr 5.8
May 5.6
Jun 5.7
Jul 5.7
Aug 6.0
Sept 5.9
Oct 6.0
Nov 5.9
Dec 6.0

1980
Jan 6.3
Feb 6.3
Mar 6.3
Apr 6.9
May 7.5
Jun 7.6
Jul 7.8
Aug 7.7
Sept 7.5
Oct 7.5
Nov 7.5
Dec 7.2 





01/1981 - Unemployme*nt rate 7.5% &#8230;. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * *Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says  Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * *Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.

*
TRY AGAIN BUBBA!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



cut and paste is all dumbto 3 does


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yeah, no one questioned slavery *shaking head*


Those things? THANK THE GOV'T INFRASTRUCTURE. 

Think without BIG GOV'T ELECTRICITY AND PHONES WOULD'VE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE MAJOR METRO AREAS? Honesty try it!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Capitalism had been around for thousands of years, why did it take until the progressive period for the largest middle class the world has EVER known to be created?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yes, I showed what the US Founders, including TJ wanted .. lol


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> THANK THE GOV'T INFRASTRUCTURE.



Dear, the Romans and Stalin build roads, Steve Jobs built the iphone in a very very free capitalist society and within a free place within that society, the exact opposite of of Stalins govt loving society. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



AGAIN, Your *OPINION*....


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > THANK THE GOV'T INFRASTRUCTURE.
> ...



Got it, you can't critically think or be honest. I do know Ronnie Reagan snitched on people, yes...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



It's not my opinion that you committed a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, what makes Benjamin Franklin's opinion any better than mine?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...






*One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010*. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didnt pass more legislation doesnt have anything to do with the Republicans. *The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:*


Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days | Fact Left


*AS DUBYA'S ECONOMY WAS TANKING 9%+ AND LOSING 700,000+ JOBS A MONTH*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*It's a fallacy BECAUSE we as a society are following HIS opinions NOT yours. Think progressive (barely) taxes and estate taxes! *


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*"And in the case of Medicare Part D - leading the charge."*

Weird, you mean a program that costs as much this decade that's 100% funded, Obamacares? And the GOP plan wasn't funded EVER? *ALMOST LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE PROGRAM (BK)  RIGHT?  *


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



how can we be following his when Gates and Buffet have but their entire fortunes in a foundation specificially so the libcommie govt cant get at it and waste it!!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Morality of Wealth Redistribution??
> Wealth Redistribution = Theft
> There is no excuse or moral high ground for theft.
> Yes, it is just that simple.



Yes, simple minds generally come up with simple answers...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So NOT left to their kids like Waltons/Kochs got. A benefit (supposedly) for society over individuals. Weird...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> .
> 
> The Republicans are like a nasty case of genital herpes.



of course thats absurd. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are Republicans and both running for president. That's a long long way from being a totally impotent Libertarians.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Skull Pilot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*"It's not that it doesn't take enough from us it's that it spends too much.

And the occasional surplus has not reduced the debt at all."*

Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues AS he took US to two UNFUNDED wars. Never claimed budget surpluses wiped out any debt... It did pay down some public debt under Clinton


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



LOL, Sure


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


dear, what is your point?
 except that you always want more and more lib commie violence. Today the Nazi steal your estate at gun point? What's tomorrow? Where does your violence end?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ah, to much of an ideologue to understand effective tax rates versus marginal rates. I'm shocked

Reagan 'tax cuts':

*" It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined"*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, dragging the train back on the tracks here,  it still boils down to one simple concept which is:   What gives Citizen A, who did nothing to earn it that any other citizen doesn't do, the right to anything that Citizen B earns?
> ...


Back in Ben's day, personal surpluses were considered capital. There was no income tax in those days, so most taxes were on property. Today, in our industrial society, capital is that money available for investment and taxes. As JFK said when proposing his huge tax breaks for the rich and corporations, we need to free investment money such that companies can expand, hire workers and help the economy to improve. He was a great president who understood the LW mentality and chose to call his totally supply side tax cuts demand side cuts. It does not change the fact that cutting taxes for the rich in a greater % and cutting corporate taxes are basic supply side economics 1.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Poor, ignorant deluded senior citizen living off of Gov't teet standing up for millionaires and billionaire best interests. Shocking...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



lol

JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron sain


*it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy*," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

*This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars.* A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.* Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.*

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) *In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.
*
*At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism*. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."





The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that *Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions.* It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. *And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
*
Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth.* "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment."*


..*.Kennedy took pains to sell the package to the business world. *Departing from the more representative rhetoric of his June 1962 Yale commencement speech,* he deliberately dressed up his program in language he thought business would like when he addressed the New York Economic Club*

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 28, 2014)

Men are made stronger on realization that the helping hand they need is at the end of their own arm. ~Sidney J. Phillips


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The fact that a someone's views may be popular doesn't make them true. 

You just committed another fallacy called _argumentum ad populum._


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Only a special kind of sucker believes Obamacare is 100% funded.  The GAO has already stated the fact that it isn't.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth.



which we now know is true  given that we got from the stone age to here  because Republicans invented things like airplanes. The demand to fly was  there since man looked at his first bird, but nothing came of it until Republican supply side capitalists invented a plane people could afford to fly in.

Now you can see why demand side liberalism should be made illegal in the USA!!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Morality of Wealth Redistribution??
> ...



Truth is often quite simple.  Liars and schemers like to pretend it's complicated.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



so when Kennedy cut marginal rates, it was a "demand side" cut, but when Reagan cut marginal rates, it was a "supply side" cut?

Hilarious!  

You can't make this stuff up!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



And you refuse to see YOUR society  for what it is, Somalia....


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



No they haven't. That's a right wing lie, I'm shocked. BUT what percentage of Dubya/GOP Medicare part D was funded? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no*. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined.*

The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



*Yes, because Dubya inherited RECORD US revenues*

Obama has record US revenues now.
Where is his balanced, or surplus, budget?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

*Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



* The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. *

How long was Bush's filibuster-proof majority?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*A benefit (supposedly) for society*

A benefit from money kept from government? Weird...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Hilarious that you're agreeing with that goof.
Maybe if you proved his claim, I'd mock you less?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 28, 2014)

The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.*

21/91= 23% cut.

Bush cut from 39.6% to 35%. 4.6/39.6=11.6%

Looks like Kennedy's cut was almost twice as large.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'. Dubya took US to Korean war levels of revenues, 15% , yes Obama got US near where Reagan's tax cuts for the rich took US, but 17%+ isn't where Carter had US or Clinton (20%) when he had 4 surpluses. Economists measure it GDP

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




Much larger to start with, how about EFFECTIVE tax rates? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

boedicca said:


> The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.



BZZ, No, it's percentage of ones income they are talking about... Try the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST link I gave


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



you mean standing up against libcommie violence. Where does your use of govt violence end? Obviously liberals want govt violence in all areas not just estate taxes! Liberalism is all about govt violence.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The average person paid more in taxes because the average person was earning More Money by the end of Reagan's two terms.
> ...



no its not!! all should pay the same price for govt just like all pay the same price in the supermarket.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong? lol


But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows *that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible.* Not only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to IRAs.


https://mises.org/daily/1544


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



OPINION. Not based in FACTS


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
> 
> Reagan cut taxes for everyone.



NOPE. Try again

https://mises.org/daily/1544



And despite right wingers 'belief' (that's ALL they EVER have), unemployment went UP (greatly) the exact opposite of their premise for tax cuts!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
> ...



unemployment went up because of Fed's 20% prime rate. Obviously taxing money from the private sector causes unemployment while cutting taxes causes employment. Tax venture capital and there is less venture capital for new ventures

Its almost simple enough for a liberal to understand


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*It's ONLY record in right wing 'reality'.*

We don't spend percentages of GDP, we spend dollars.

Obama now has record dollar revenues, why can't he balance the budget?

Or am I a racist for asking?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*So the LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIST is wrong?*

Yeah, he's a nutbag, like Krugman.

*of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts*

Majority? That sounds like more than the top 1%. Thanks!!!

*would lower savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes on business and on capital gains.*

Lowered savings and investment are bad. I agree, we need to cut business taxes and capital gains taxes, right now!!!! Thanks again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Social Security privatization was a big one. I'm sure I could come up with more if I cared.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Thank God he didn't get Social Security privatized. The crash at the end of his term would have wiped out many.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says Unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.*
> ...



*The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which helped taxes go up overall. *

The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because of bracket creep? That's hilarious.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would bracket creep have been prevented? No. 

The tax cuts didn't cut taxes because Social Security is a crappy system and payroll taxes had to increase? Even funnier.
If Reagan hadn't cut income taxes, would Social Security have been less crappy? No.
Would payroll tax hikes have somehow been avoided? No.

Keep referencing that nutbag, he's very helpful to your claims.  LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



How would putting say 20% of your annual payroll taxes into the market for 2 or 3 years before the crash have wiped out anyone?

I wish 100% of my payroll taxes were invested in the market since I entered the workforce, I'd be able to retire today.

You may not have noticed, but the market has come back. It usually does.


----------



## Immanuel (Jul 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I always find the claim that people who put their retirement assets into the market and then are unlucky enough to retire just before or during a downturn lose everything.  As if they are going to retire today, and sell everything tomorrow?  That is so funny!  What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns?  A year, year and a half at the most.  

Recovering losses from a market downturn - Individual Investing Education | Russell Investments



> History makes the message clear
> Investors who sit on the sidelines after a downturn missed the higher-than-average returns that followed market corrections. While it may be tempting to stay in cash until you're sure the markets have calmed, history shows us that you may have a better chance of recouping your lossesand doing so at a faster rateif you re-enter the markets sooner rather than later.
> 
> Looking at historical index returns, we can study how the market behaved coming out of prior market downturns. Between 1926 and 2008 there were seven periods of recession where markets were down more than 25% and the down period lasted longer than 12 months. On average the annualized market returns were notably higher in the 10 years after each market rebound compared to long-term results from 1926-2008.



Even if you retire the day before the market collapses unless you chicken out and sell everything the very next day, you are going to survive the downturn.  

I, too, wish I could have invested my tax dollars into the market.  Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> .  Hell, just my Social Security taxes would make me happy.



yes the libs collect or steal 15% of everyone's life time income which in the average case would amount to $1.4 million at retirement. Sure beats the dog food money they give you if 
you live long enough to collect a penny of it.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 28, 2014)

*us taxpayers funds used to subsidized the palestnian genocide  is not considered redistribution of wealth.

Monies used to support and defend zionism is exempted from such criticism.*

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



*What is the length of time it takes for the market to recover after even the worst downturns?*

Well, after the Great Depression, it took until 1954 for the Dow to reach its previous level.
It was much quicker, if you reinvested dividends.
After peaking in 1966, it took the market until 1982 to reach its previous level.

I wouldn't trust the guy who said it has to come back quicker.
That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 28, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


You are so full of crap we can smell you over the internet.


----------



## dblack (Jul 28, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> *us taxpayers funds used to subsidized the palestnian genocide  is not considered redistribution of wealth.
> 
> Monies used to support and defend zionism is exempted from such criticism.*
> 
> .



Exempt from whom? Ron and Rand Paul level their share. Too bad Democrats are so weak-kneed when it comes to pushing back against the military-industrial complex. We could use their help.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



sad but true. all the liberal programs are based in violence. People can't spend their own money wisely, the liberals have to steal it at gunpoint because only they know how to spend it wisely!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > And people who add so called "green energy" systems to their homes get SPECIFIC tax deductions as well. There are all kinds of tax incentives designed to spur certain behaviors, why pick on the one industry that keeps our country moving?
> ...


You should be very happy there are record profits. As demand has picked up more people go to work. If not for the profits there would be no new jobs.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got it, not only dishonest stupid too. Ever hear of inflation and population growth?

Not even near Ronnie's revenues  18% of GDP when he tripled US debt, that's why economists measure it GDP...

No, I'm sure you are a racists but has nothing to do with your asking..


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




ONCE MORE

" Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform Act shows that *over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) *and, of the majority that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10% or more.* In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible"
*


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 29, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



I think it's more fair for college students with good grades to give their A's to the students that partied instead of studying.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Good thing, can you imagine IF it had passed prior to Dubya's great recession?

ONCE MORE

"What policies did he want 2001-2005 he didn't get?"

March 4, 2005

The president offers some key details on reforms he is pushing, but still leaves some big questions

Bush's plan for Social Security - Mar. 4, 2005

*NOW GIVE ME THE BILLS THAT WERE BLOCKED IN THE GOP CONGRESS? Oops*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Good you agree, taxes were cut on the 'job creators' not much with everyone else


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The market is bullshit, it's Vegas East. Don't remember the market pre Reagan spiking it huh?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




It's GREAT, until it POPS!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*" That being said, investing your payroll taxes over a 40 year period would give you several times the benefits compared to the government run system we have now. "*



Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East? Weird how conservatives forget WHY we created SS...


----------



## Ropey (Jul 29, 2014)

> Morality of Wealth Redistribution



You're forgetting the most important part of that equation. 

There is no morality in the _mandatory _redistribution of my wealth.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



RECORD OIL Corp profits. But we need to subsidize them? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Got it, you'll stay confused

"THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT THAN EXPENDITURES as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. "

*Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary*

Look at 1998-2001 F/Y's


Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*In 2001, the CBO projected that the total Clinton surplus of about $280 billion* would balloon to $5.9 trillion worth of cumulative surpluses through 2011, when in reality the accumulated deficits reached $6 trillion at the end of that time period.

That's pretty bad arithmetic. So what happened?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently tweeted this chart, which breaks down the major drivers that turned a small surplus into a massive deficit:







Tthis chart also hits the nail on the head when it comes to identifying the major deficit drivers:

*An extremely large tax cut that failed to pay for itself, two wars on the nation's credit card, an unfunded expansion of an entitlement program, and general overspending turned what could've been a cushy surplus into a huge deficit.*


How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*Ever hear of inflation and population growth?*

Obama would have a balanced budget if it weren't for inflation and population growth? LOL!

You guys always have an excuse for his failures. Maybe he's just a bad president?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



of the *majority* that did enjoy marginal tax cuts

Yes, majority, over 50%.

Thanks for disproving your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*Good thing, can you imagine IF it had passed prior to Dubya's great recession?*

I can imagine. I love buying stocks when they're on sale.

Imagine if everyone had their own private account over the last 40 years.
They'd have triple the benefit, a huge chunk of money to pass onto their heirs and the assholes in Washington would have less power. 

Sounds like that would be a huge win for everyone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I agree, anyone who thinks Reagan only cut taxes on the top 1% is a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Keep your money out of the market.

I'm sure Social Security will give you enough to retire on.
What could go wrong?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



You're right, future politicians will never cut your benefits.

Just ask the Greeks. 

I'll never forget that liberals are so stupid, they think Social Security is a good investment.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Economists measure GDP in actual dollars and in inflation dollars. The left wing extremists try to skew the issue as a % of GDP. It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work. It is obvious you are economics challenged from the word go.


----------



## dblack (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Dayum!!!!.. Charts AND Graphs! You're a force of nature.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 29, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> . It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work.



actually govt cant stimulate the economy to grow! New inventions stimulated the economy and caused it to grow from stone age to here. Govt does not invent products. What it can do is slow down growth by interfering, but it cant help growth.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 29, 2014)

I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.


Times sure have changed, huh?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 29, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.
> 
> 
> Times sure have changed, huh?



For me the very best was when somebody asked Barry if he really had voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, an open communist. He said, "oh that was just me resisting George Bush".
THe truth was: "I voted to left of Bernie because I'm a lib commie like he is."


----------



## initforme (Jul 29, 2014)

How about rephrasing the question to "where is the morality in a small percent controlling  a large percent of the wealth??


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nope, Dubya left US in a HUGE hole, lol


DUBYA LOST 1.2 MILLION+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS

FEB 2001 111,860,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs

Obama enters office

FEB 2009 110, 699, 000 PRIVATE sector jobs


JUNE 2014 116,872,000 PRIVATE sector jobs

HMM, MORE THAN 6+ MILLION MORE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR? Not even looking at the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to Dubya's policies!!!

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files...S0500000001_2004_2014_all_period_M06_data.gif


----------



## dblack (Jul 29, 2014)

initforme said:


> How about rephrasing the question to "where is the morality in a small percent controlling  a large percent of the wealth??



They only control your money if you give it to them.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*"In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible"*

EXCEPT:


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



* NOW GIVE ME THE BILLS THAT WERE BLOCKED IN THE GOP CONGRESS? Oops*


I guess YOU missed that which was the entire premise of my posit? lol


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I get it, you can't read graphs and you're an ignorant tool...


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's called insurance. How many have went belly up by investing in the Vegas East markets?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yes, the US SS system is SOOOOO much like the Greeks *shaking head*


*Insurance via Fed Gov't or gamble Vegas East? *


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got it, you'll hang onto myths, lies and distortions...


JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.




President *George W. Bush*, who cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, may very well be the only true *supply-side commander-in-chief in the past 50 years*. It was the second round of tax cuts passed in 2003 that then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil vigorously argued against, citing the growing deficit.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney famously responded with, "You know Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections, this is our due."


Byron Williams: Supply-Side Economics Sounds Good But It Hasn't Worked


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > . It takes actual dollars to stimulate the economy and depending on the business cycle a supply side tax cut (like JFK did) or a demand side like Bush gave us will work.
> ...



Tell that to the Tech industry that relies on much of Gov't spending that developed MUCH of their products or the Gov't rail/road systems dummy!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.
> 
> 
> Times sure have changed, huh?



You probably 'believe' that nonsense too *shaking head*






.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 29, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I still remember when Joe The Plumber asked Obama about his plans to spread the wealth and the media denied it vehemently and Obama supporters tried to destroy his life because he asked a question that exposed Obama's Socialism.
> ...



LINKIE? lol

You are a moron and LIAR....Commie? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I thought Obama got all those jobs back? And now the government is taking in more dollars than under Bush.

And Obama still won't cut spending?

How many more on food stamps in Obama's wonderful new world?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You're depending on government insurance? Wow, you're dumber than I thought.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You're right, our system is in a much bigger hole.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 29, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



It is obvious you don't understand ANY PART OF THE ISSUE. Deficits are annual shortfalls of revenues to meet spending. All deficits become part of the national debt. The national debt cannot go up at the end of any fiscal year in which there is a surplus. As much as I liked Clinton, as he was a great fiscal president, *THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE THAN EXPENDITURES  IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT  as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. *In fact, there has not been a surplus since Eisenhower.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 30, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Record oil profits? Are we still playing that stupid game? This is one more subject of which you know nothing. How are we subsidizing them and they are still making only modest profits? Don't forget, 100% of nothing is nothing. 300% of 3% is still only 9%. Yet you still come up with stupid comments about things you know nothing.

For full year 2013 Exxon (XOM) reported net income of $33.45 billion. Their operating cash flow was an even more monstrous $44.9 billion. However, when you factor in that capital expenditures on exploration amounted to $34.7 billion, then free cash flow was $11.2 billion or about a third of stated net income. Free cash flow is what remains after all capital expenditures and other investments have been made to sustain and grow the underlying business. After Exxon paid its dividend to shareholders of just under $11.2 billion, it was basically flat for the year based on the metric of just measuring cash. Apple (AAPL), in contrast, reported fiscal 2013 earnings of $37 billion, operating cash flow of $53.7 billion and free cash flow of a whopping $44.6 billion. Yet there is nary a pejorative peep suggesting anything extraordinary about those numbers.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 30, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


That whole chart is a lie. The debt cannot increase if there is a surplus. Are you really that ignorant? It is called cooking the books or voodoo accounting. Increasing the debt means THERE IS A DEFICIT THAT FY.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 30, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Don't forget, Jimmy Carter and Clinton also had a hand in the housing balloon and subsequent crash. Why don't you give them the credit they deserve?


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, Dubya took US to Korean war level revenues, and Obama has US ALMOST back up to where Reagan dropped US to in revenues, when Ronnie tripled the US debt

*Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them *in last years presidential election, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by Bloomberg. *Kentuckys Owsley County, which backed Romney with 81 percent of its vote, has the largest proportion of food stamp recipients among those that he carried. *


Food Stamp Cut Backed by Republicans With Voters on Rolls - Bloomberg




*Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know*
Red States Mostly Welfare States Dependent On Blue States But Likely Too Uninformed to Know


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...





"THERE WAS NOT MORE REVENUE THAN EXPENDITURES IN ANY YEAR HE WAS PRESIDENT as witnessed by the fact that the debt increased every year he was president. "

Got it, YOU are an ignorant tool who can't recognize the difference between a yearly budget versus debt

Money coming in is $100,000

Money going out is $90,000

You have a YEARLY BUDGET  SURPLUS even IF you take a second on your home and you increase your debt

Grow a brain dummy!

*Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.*

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Exxon Mobil just missed setting a company -- and world -- record for annual profit in 2012.

The No. 1 U.S. oil company posted full-year earnings of $44.9 billion. *While that was up 9% from 2011, it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company, the $45.2 billion Exxon Mobil earned in 2008. *


http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/01/news/companies/exxon-mobil-profit/

"RECORD OIL Corp profits. But we need to subsidize them? lol"


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*Grow a brain dummy. Yearly income versus yearly outflows. Under Clinton more came in than went out!*


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



MORE RIGHT WING CRAP? I'm shocked

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


*The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets Msrch 2008
*
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
*Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.*
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register





Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and *the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007*. "



http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


* Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


*DUBYA* FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN* 2003*, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

*Dubya *was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in *2004*. He gave them less resources. Later in *2004 Dubya* allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Q Why would Bushs regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his Ownership Society programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bushs regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
*Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership*
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals*
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
*Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
*Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
*PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
*

*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



*Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them*

Romney won most counties that Obama screwed up the most? Interesting.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 31, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them*
> 
> Romney won most counties that Obama screwed up the most? Interesting.




Ya gotta hand it to them for voting to force themselves to kick the habit!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them*
> ...



Or maybe we can chalk it up to people who are finally figuring out that 'spreading the wealth around' sounds really good to those who have less until they figure out that the net result is more often than not 'spreading the misery around'.

The left continues to blame, point fingers, and wallow in concepts of oppression and victimhood while promoting the myth that big brother government is the solution.

Every now and then though, you see light bulbs go on as folks figure out what a lie that is.


----------



## dblack (Jul 31, 2014)

I think a lot of confusion is spread around when we starting talking about people "getting paid what they're worth". As though someone's income or wealth says something about their intrinsic value as a person. And from the point of view, people will quite rightly reject the idea that a CEO is "worth" 100 times as much as an employee.

In a free market, how much someone makes has nothing to do with how virtuous they are, how smart or kind or generous. Nor does it have anything to do with how hard they work. How much someone makes is determined solely by how much other people, people with money to spend, value the work that they do. And no one can make that call but the people spending the money.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 31, 2014)

dblack said:


> I think a lot of confusion is spread around when we starting talking about people "getting paid what they're worth". As though someone's income or wealth says something about their intrinsic value as a person. And from the point of view, people will quite rightly reject the idea that a CEO is "worth" 100 times as much as an employee.
> 
> In a free market, how much someone makes has nothing to do with how virtuous they are, how smart or kind or generous. Nor does it have anything to do with how hard they work. How much someone makes is determined solely by how much other people, people with money to spend, value the work that they do. And no one can make that call but the people spending the money.



It really comes down to the law of supply and demand that we all should have learned in middle school.  Very few people are willing to put in the years and years of difficult study, a great deal of expense, and more years of apprenticeship in order to become a competent brain surgeon.  But almost everybody of normal health and ability can be a janitor that takes relatively little education and the learning curve is short and attainable for almost all.  Therefore there are few brain surgeons and those who do put in the time and effort can command a salary many times over what the average janitor makes.

Likewise there are only a handful of people with the physical skill and desire to be pro athletes or coaches while thousands and thousands are able to qualify to be coaches in schools.  So the pro athlete or coach makes many times over what the average high school coach earns.

And however much folks dislike the huge earnings of a CEO of a large corporation, there are only a handful of people in the world with the vision, temperament, and considerable skill set to do that job competently.  Ross Perot once summed it up that the owner of the local hardware store may be very competent at what he does, but to extrapolate that to him being qualified to run Wal-mart?  Just doesn't work that way.

BUT. . . . the fact that some do qualify for and earn those obscene salaries does not take one penny out of your pocket or my pocket but does provide means and incentive for thousands and thousands of others to earn a living.

We as a society can encourage and show the have nots what is necessary to do to become haves and work hard to make that a cultural norm again.  We can stop the policies that mostly demotivate them to make the effort.   And that would be the compassionate thing to do.  But we won't help them by taking from the haves and 'spreading it around'.  In fact that is where a large part of the demotivation comes from already.  Why would we want to do more of it?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


*Gee, a stupid and ignorant tool who does not recognize that those who call Clinton's budget in surplus have not counted all the money that was borrowed to make it look like a surplus.*

*It really takes a brainless idiot tool to not recognize the fact, that if the debt goes up at the end of any Fiscal Year, THERE CANNOT BE A SURPLUS FOR THAT YEAR. There has to be a reduction in the debt for a surplus to occur. That has not happened since Eisenhower no matter how much left wing propaganda you spout.*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



When the world record for Oil Profits is a lower % of profits of other industries, it is obvious that Oil Profits were continued at a low level all along.. 100% of 1 is still 1. 400% of 1 is 4. Not much of a gain since most industries have profits ranging in the 10% to 20%range and you have not whined about that even once. I got rid of my Oil company stocks long ago because there was insufficient profit.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


I have a brain and it growing every day when compared to the brainless propaganda you post every day from sites lying to you. That whole chart is a lie. The debt cannot increase if there is a surplus. Are you really that ignorant? It is called cooking the books or voodoo accounting. Increasing the debt means THERE IS A DEFICIT THAT FY. The DEBT CANNOT RISE IN A FISCAL YEAR IF THERE IS A SURPLUS. Are you actually so stupid you don't understand that more money has to be spent than we take receive for a debt to increase? Are you really that incapable of thinking?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


*Wow, how strange, you actually believe a leftist president has told the truth.* Private sector loans, being pushed by Fannie and Freddie and government regulators, with low or no down payments and low interest rates, all because of CRA and stupid government monetary and fiscal policies most definitely led to the balloon. We can trace CRA back to Carter, but it was Clinton who first chose to enforce and push it, and Bush ignorantly continued it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You would have to be blind or just super stupid not to see the up swing in housing prices to value starting in 1997. Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?Now, are you going to continue to believe left wing propaganda rather than a bona fide scientifically conducted study based on real data?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru

NBER Working Paper No. 18609
Issued in December 2012
NBER Program(s):   AP   CF 


Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks&#8217; incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.​

The Null Hypothesis was, NO. The actual findings were YES.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 31, 2014)

I have come to the conclusion that some people will believe anything their left wing propaganda sites tell them to believe, then proudly post the most ridiculous, incorrect, and intentionally lied to incorrect information like parrots who do not think. Daddy boy is one of those people.


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jul 31, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



This would not be such a big issue if we had stringent work requirements for welfare recipients who were able to work.  No work, no welfare.  Of course, this would not apply to those who are unable to work.

I don't have a problem with county and state welfare programs, since these are easier to control and often more effective.  I think the problem comes when you have the federal government involved in welfare.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Jul 31, 2014)

mikegriffith1 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


I personally believe that anyone who is able to work, should work, if they receive public assistance. Clinton took a stab at that but congress wouldn't let him get it all passed. 

Individual productivity ( the value of their work to society) should be used to gage their assistance.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


And what exactly is your problem with a 45 billion profit on 453 billion in total revenue?
I skimmed the 2012 looking for a huge ledger entry for income received from the federal government. I didn't see anything like that but I did see where they paid a total of 102 billion in taxes.... Hell of a subsidy there, no?


----------



## Listening (Jul 31, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I just caught dicklessdad over on another thread posting this same horseshit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ic-exhuberance-or-malaise-30.html#post9546241

He plays loose with the "truth".


----------



## dblack (Jul 31, 2014)

Listening said:


> I just caught dicklessdad over on another thread posting this same horseshit.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ic-exhuberance-or-malaise-30.html#post9546241
> 
> He plays loose with the "truth".



It's just derailing distraction.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 31, 2014)

Why is a 10% profit of an evil oil company obscene but a 23% profit margin for Microsoft just ducky? Is Bill Gates and company getting a bigger subsidy than Exxon-Mobile?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 31, 2014)

In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71.   With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.

Now, who is greedy?


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 31, 2014)

But it's Exxon's fault gasoline is so expensive because they're EVIL.

Probably racist too because poor (black) people are hit the hardest by expensive fuels.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Jul 31, 2014)

boedicca said:


> In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71.   With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...*far less than the oil companies' profit margin.*
> 
> Now, who is greedy?



You're not very good with math,  are you?

Exxon, for example, made only *seven cents per gallon* of gasoline in 2011. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly *50 cents per gallon* that federal, state and local governments rake in on an average gallon of gas pumped in the U.S.​
Here in the real world, where people understand math, 7 cents is less than 50 cents.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 31, 2014)

boedicca said:


> In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71.   With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.
> 
> Now, who is greedy?



$3.13 in Mobile, $3.23 in Foley today.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 31, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71.   With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...*far less than the oil companies' profit margin.*
> ...


Actually, between California state gasoline tax and federal fuel tax, she is paying about 88 cents/gallon. Knowing boedicca, I believe she worded the second part wrong and meant that the gubmint's slice of the pie was much larger than Exxon's.


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*" it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company"*

* Oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses*

 According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

*And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before. *

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

Listening said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you can't refute red staters LOVE their welfare!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Why is a 10% profit of an evil oil company obscene but a 23% profit margin for Microsoft just ducky? Is Bill Gates and company getting a bigger subsidy than Exxon-Mobile?



 According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, *capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general* and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

*The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,* said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

boedicca said:


> In CA, federal, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline total about $.71.   With regular at $4.18 in my neighborhood, the gubmints are taking 17% of the price of gas...far less than the oil companies' profit margin.
> 
> Now, who is greedy?



Let me know when oil corps build or maintain roads, lol

Dummy!


----------



## Dad2three (Jul 31, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Which roads and bridges does Exxon pay for?


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 31, 2014)

mikegriffith1 said:


> I don't have a problem with county and state welfare programs, since these are easier to control and often more effective.  I think the problem comes when you have the federal government involved in welfare.



*I do hope you understand that US Treasury  monies given in foreign aid to the Jewish State ---over 100 BILLION DOLLARS SO FAR - in order for them to ethnic cleanse the Palestinians is NOT wealth redistributtion, According to AIPAC , the JDL, American Likudnicks and Israel Firsters - they are the exemption.




.*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 1, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


You are so damned stupid you don't understand the facts no matter how many effort to educate you. The oil companies did NOT MAKE EXCESSIVE PROFITS, and the only *SUBSIDIES ARE REASONABLE TAX DEDUCTIONS RELATING TO THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION*.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 1, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...


I suspect their huge  income tax bill paid for many roads. Are you too stupid to realize that?


----------



## OriginalShroom (Aug 1, 2014)

I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 1, 2014)

What is quite apparent is, dad2three is actually a mindless mechanical repeater who parrots the lies left wing extremist sites tells him to say. We are trying to educate a bunch of cogs and wheels which cannot think. He is a brainless rube.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 2, 2014)

When government robs Peter to pay Paul it does so secure in the knowledge that it will always have Paul's vote for re-election.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 2, 2014)

OriginalShroom said:


> I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.



Are you kidding?  Liberalism is just a grab bag of rationalizations for organized plunder.  It's the moral code of a thug.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 4, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> What is quite apparent is, dad2three is actually a mindless mechanical repeater who parrots the lies left wing extremist sites tells him to say. We are trying to educate a bunch of cogs and wheels which cannot think. He is a brainless rube.



A liberal lacks the IQ to understand that capitalist competition drives profits down so monopolistic behavior is nearly impossible. Only govt interference, like in the case of health care insurance, can diminish or eliminate competition.


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > What is quite apparent is, dad2three is actually a mindless mechanical repeater who parrots the lies left wing extremist sites tells him to say. We are trying to educate a bunch of cogs and wheels which cannot think. He is a brainless rube.
> ...



Capitalists also understand that competition drives profits down so they create various  types of monopolies to eliminate competition. Government then comes in with  laws to restore competition and corporations create new ways to eliminate competition, and it becomes a continuous game.


----------



## alan1 (Aug 4, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



 [MENTION=35264]regent[/MENTION]
Name a current private sector monopoly.
Or better yet, name a private sector monopoly from each of the last four decades.


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Yeah. "Government comes in with laws to restore competition." Like with health care, right?


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2014)

dblack said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Yep, government comes in when capitalists will furnish the basics of life only for profit and some Americans cannot afford those basics of life. That concept  has been a responsibility of  governments since the Constitution was ratified.


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2014)

alan1 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Are you saying those anti-monopoly laws are working? Not only are the anti-monopoly laws working but the pure food and drugs laws, traffic laws, aviation, and  tons of laws protecting American's safety and well being.  Good point.


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2014)

regent said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Read up on the history of the AMA and health care regulation in this country. It was implemented primarily in response to waves of immigrant doctors who were undercutting established doctor's on their rates.

Regulation almost always limits competition. That's usually why it's adopted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2014)

regent said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



*Yep, government comes in when capitalists will furnish the basics of life only for profit*

Profit is awful. That's why Venezuela has a shortage of toilet paper.
At least they can wipe their asses with the knowledge that no one makes a profit. LOL!


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2014)

alan1 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



There are always number of cases always going on under the Sherman or Clayton Acts. Microsoft  got burned, Kodak and AT& T. 
Is a business a monopoly until so declared a monopoly by the Court? In our small city the hospital is now in court bit being accused of violating the law. But is being accused different than being found guilty?


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2014)

alan1 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



There are always number of cases always going on under the Sherman or Clayton Acts. Microsoft  got burned, Kodak and AT& T. 
Is a business a monopoly until so declared a monopoly by the Court? In our small city the hospital is now in court bit being accused of violating the law.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 4, 2014)

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


All you have said is, Corporations find a way to better compete. Competition is never eliminated. But it is a continuous as when one company finds away to win a little over competition, the next company comes up with something a little better. IT IS CALLED MARKETING and you attempts to put some kind of negative spin on marketing variations is nothing but sick whining.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 4, 2014)

dblack said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



There was no healthcare competition. Republicans backed the AMA lowering admissions to med schools to increase doctors profits, protected drug companies from foreign competition to increase profits & used mccarran ferguson act to protect insurance companies from interstate competition & allowed insurance price fixing & racketeering free from federal law. Corrupt government protects profits of it's corporate sponsors from competition.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 5, 2014)

regent said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



It is not my (or government's) responsibility to provide you with the basics of life. That is on you. If you can't handle your responsibilities, you are an irresponsible person.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Rikurzhen said:
> ...


Did I say they paid for any? Thee people who purchase their product pay for roads and bridges. Do you have a point?


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 5, 2014)

Personal responsibility:

A quaint, antiquated concept now displaced by government largess.

After all, it is well known that when people are allowed to vote themselves largess they will and will continue so to do until there is nothing left to steal from others.  At which time the will turn on those in government at the time and there will be beheadings.

_Are we there yet, Mommy?_


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

KissMy said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Both parties allied with the AMA for that purpose. Even as a liberal and a democrat I understand the reality that it is not all the GOP doing things against the interests of the average American.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Weird, I thought gas taxes (according to conservatives) pay for that? But no, their taxes go to the military to keep stability in the world to keep their oil costs high and profits even higher!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

OriginalShroom said:


> I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.



Called a SOCIETY. Don't like it?

Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. *He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of i*t."


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> What is quite apparent is, dad2three is actually a mindless mechanical repeater who parrots the lies left wing extremist sites tells him to say. We are trying to educate a bunch of cogs and wheels which cannot think. He is a brainless rube.



Says a Klown who believes in myths and fairy tales like Ayn Rands fables. Weird libertarians don't have ONE successful state or nation to EVER point tto that used their crap. (NO the US never did, from day one we used HEAVY protectionists policy)...


----------



## alan1 (Aug 5, 2014)

regent said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


It most certainly should be.
Hopefully you will never get accused of rape and think accusation and conviction are the same thing for the innocent man.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




You don't understand the context of the question. Got it


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



*"Even as a liberal and a democrat "*

lol, You made me choke on my snapple


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 5, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?



There is a such thing as being too rich for Democracy so at some point we came up with cutting the mega rich's fortunes in half upon their death's.  That way their kids still get half a fortune and the government/people get their half.

Article: How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy? | OpEdNews

But the rich have fought back and they got rid of the death tax.  I don't know where it stands now but with our debt we could use half of Bill Gates fortune when he dies.

Or that guy who owns the Clippers.  We should get half of the $2 billion he got from the sale of the Clippers.  And he probably already paid $1 billion in taxes so his kids can have half a billion the state gets the rest.

Please don't cry for them.  They'll be just fine.  And if they don't pay then the poor and middle class have to pay.  That's not right, fair and it doesn't work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



That's a good reason to abolish democracy, not to loot the wealthy.

Note that you haven't posted a single reason why the government should be entitled to a single cent of Bill Gates' fortune.

What is "fair" about taking half of everything someone spent all his life earning?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

regent said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Corporations file antitrust lawsuits against their competitors because it's easier than producing a better product.  It has nothing to do with any inherent merits of the case.



regent said:


> Is a business a monopoly until so declared a monopoly by the Court? In our small city the hospital is now in court bit being accused of violating the law. But is being accused different than being found guilty?



The only monopolies in this country are government protected.  They are creations of the government.  So as long as competitors are free to enter a market, there is no monopoly.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.
> ...



No, it's called government.  Society and government are two separate things.



Dad2three said:


> Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:
> 
> "All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. *He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of i*t."



Appeal to authority.  I've already explained that it's a logical fallacy.


----------



## dblack (Aug 5, 2014)

Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Your theory that only oil companies need the military and stability in the world more than anyone else is absurd on its face.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

dblack said:


> Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.



The looters don't even try to justify their robbery.  They proceed as if it's an axiom of nature that they have the right to take what you've earned.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



 Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
*If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on  and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not  it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.*



With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. *Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." S*mith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

*The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule.*

Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers



*George Washington*, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued,* "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
*





*John Adam*s, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "*the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."*




*James Madison, the Constitution's main author*, described inequality as an evil, s*aying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches."* *He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."*


http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



*We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,* establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text



union
noun \&#712;yün-y&#601;n\

: *an organization of workers formed to protect the rights and interests of its members*

: an act of joining two or more things together

US SOCIETY


*Libertarians are frauds and parasites* but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dblack said:


> Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.



80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated. 


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis


The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. *They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it. *


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Sure it is, that's why the US spent trillions the last 70+ years to keep the middle east in 'friendly hands'


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.
> ...



"*The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."*

Thomas Jefferson


----------



## dblack (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
"*Beer, if drank with moderation, softens the temper,
cheers the spirit and promotes health.*"
-- Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Bush92 (Aug 5, 2014)

There is no ,"morality" to wealth. What a naive assumption. Some people can make money, be ruthless, and sleep just fine at night. Some people can make money and not sleep fine at night and become philanthropist. Some people cyan be poor and happy. Some people an be poor and unhappy. But either way, it's their free will. I cannot knock a greedy prick millionaire. His risk his money.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Are you that amazingly stupid? Tax on Gasoline? Tax on Oil, it all goes into the same pot, and that money, and MORE pays for highway infrastructure.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.
> ...


In fact, Federal Taxes are collected to pay for the authorized functions listed in the Constitution as Amended; and based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > What is quite apparent is, dad2three is actually a mindless mechanical repeater who parrots the lies left wing extremist sites tells him to say. We are trying to educate a bunch of cogs and wheels which cannot think. He is a brainless rube.
> ...


As a liberal democrat (not a left wing fanatic like daddy boy) I do not accept Ayn Rand's ideas, nor am I a libertarian, but you daddy boy are a wildly fanatic leftist without the slightest idea of that which you spout. All you do is repeat propaganda your puppeteers spew at you.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



If there is anyone who doesn't understand the contest of a question, or of a thought, or of economics, or of history, IT IS YOU DADDY BOY.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


I guess you are so far left and a progressive fanatic, my being simply a liberal democrat would look conservative. Your stupidity drives you ignorance.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...


I had a late breakfast at our local Waffle House. On the wall as we walked in I observed the Preamble to the Constitution and read it again. So perfectly worded, even the part, "to promote the general welfare." It does not say PROVIDE, give, donate, it says TO PROMOTE. I believes it means that within the scope of the comment that those WHO CANNOT PROVIDE for themselves SHOULD BE ASSISTED, and in a dignified manner. It does not say, THE GOVERNMENT SHOLD PROVIDE TO THOSE WHO REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN LIVES that we will tax the responsible and give it to the irresponsible. Any one who believes that all of the people receiving assistance are unable to work believe in fairy tales.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



So you think it would be good for the average guy if Saddam controlled 1/3 of the world oil supply and the price of gas was $10/gal?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



How does that justify looting what I've earned?


----------



## Care4all (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


the price of oil skyrocketed BECAUSE of the Iraqi war...   wars make oil prices go up, not down....


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*This quotation has not been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.*  It is most likely a corruption of Jefferson's comment to James Madison, *"[Rational society] informs the mind, sweetens the temper, chears our spirits, and promotes health."*

Beer, if drunk with moderation...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*"Are you that amazingly stupid? Tax on Gasoline?"*
*


Federal gas tax revenues can't keep up with spending


A bipartisan Senate proposal emerged Wednesday to rescue beleaguered federal transportation funding by raising the tax on gasoline by 12 cents a gallon


A bump at the pump? Senators propose a 12-cent hike in federal gas tax. - The Washington Post*


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*Libertarians are frauds and parasites* but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You mean like Europe? A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



MORE myths and fairy tales, I'm shocked

*Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households*''


*Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.*



\






Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



*Libertarians are frauds and parasites *but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




YOU are a Democrat of Abe's  era, Southern trash!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



* I do not accept Ayn Rand's ideas, nor am I a libertarian*

HORSESHIT!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



*' based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights'*


LOL


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The price would be $20/gal in Europe because most of the price there is the result of excise taxes.

So you think Saddam should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait?  Is that really what you're saying?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



How are libertarians parasites?  Who are they sucking off of?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 5, 2014)

Care4all said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Yeah, it "sky rocketed" for about a week.  Then it returned to its pre-war level.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 6, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



*A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am*


----------



## dblack (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



hmmm.... bri?

Troll's got a point...


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never understand how left can say it is moral to forcibly take money from one person to give to another.
> ...



Mr Franklin was a wealthy man and died as such while Mr Morris had been a very wealthy man who sacrificed his fortune to support the revolution and died nearly penniless.
Franklin, though I have profound respect for, was a tad hypocritical here.

I think also, that you misunderstand what was meant by "Welfare of the Publick". Franklin was NOT advocating that government should assume the responsibilities of citizens, but that it should provide such things as a military, courts and police. for the good of the "Publick".


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 6, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...



Hypocritical? lol


WHY? You realize, though Mr Morris was the financier (Washington's banker) , he lost his money speculating right?


All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: *But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick*, who, by their Laws, have created it, and *who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition*

Try to critically think and be honest!


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You didn't answer the question, nimrod.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The question was: Which roads and bridges does Exxon pay for?

If you expect an answer on context, include context.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...



What right do you have to Bill Gates' money?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


All of those men died fairly well off. Where did their assets end up? Certainly not in the US treasury.


----------



## regent (Aug 6, 2014)

Perhaps everything should be paid for by use? If a person walks on a sidewalk or uses a street he pays. 
But how would we pay for things like national defense, because I wouldn't pay and how they gonna charge me? I think the libertarians are on to something here, just gotta work out the bugs. A new program: Pay for use only.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.
> ...


The middle class has been eviscerated by *taxes*.

The wealthy have no desire to keep people poor. We need customers. If you think I charge too much for my product, consider that the shot whiskey I serve is taxed $0.18. Licenses, property and inventory taxes cost thousands/ year and I must buy distilled spirits from the state and beers from approved distributors that have monopolies in their areas. Budweiser products come on one truck, Miller on a second and importeds and wine on a third. I cannot go to a independent package store or grocery and buy stock.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



OK Fuck ya. I wish I could just remove you from all things oil. Screw you and your Chevy Volt, Good luck finding a place in walking distance to buy food.
Without oil, you would have *nothing.*

Talk about the middle class being eviscerated!!!!!!

We HAVE to have oil.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Care4all said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



What was the price of gasoline the day obama took office? About half of what it is today.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You are a fucking idiot!

Quite comical in your ignorance, really.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



They are not paying as much taxes as he feels they should.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Wrong, fool. You really should educate yourself or remain silent.


----------



## racewright (Aug 6, 2014)

None,None==all should pay taxes and noone should be exempt to include corporations,religious groups,school systems all should pay with no exceptions poor rich everyone or NOONE. Fuck subsidies  and exemptions.  Just allows those who should not tooo BEAT THE SYSTEM.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



He is incapable of realizing that his comment has nothing to do with actually giving others money, or making them happy. TJ was simply saying that the government MUST SECURE the right such that that everyone can acquire that happiness through their own responsible actions. Apparently he can't read the constitution for understanding. The most important means by which happiness can be acquired as per the Constitution is protecting our private property, not taking it capriciously as is currently done.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


*Gland you finally agree with me. Gasoline/petroleum taxes fund the highway system. In addition your comment, "Federal gas tax revenues[/SIZE] can't keep up with spending," is also true, not just on fuel taxes, but income taxes, and all other forms of taxation, all the way back to Eisenhower.*


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Gee, you left out the other wars started by Democrat administrations, like WWII, KOREA, VIETNAM. As if we don't have valid reasons to go to war when threatened. Are you that stupid?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



You aren't smart enough to get shocked, unless you stick your finger in an electric outlet.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Were we talking about entitlements? Especially those entitlements people have paid premiums to EARN the benefits? But that was a pretty little pie chart.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


I am a liberal Democrat, and vote for democratic candidates and support liberal values. You on the other hand are a left wing fanatic who cannot think for himself and consistently post extremist propaganda that your puppet master tells you to post.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Yep, you just stuck your nose up a horse's ass and he shit. Fortunately I belong to the group of blue dog democrats who want the country to succeed such that it provides the most prosperity possible to the most people. 

You in your thoughtless in ability to think, support every wild ass fanatic left wing extremist known to mankind whether it destroys the fabric of out country or endangers our economic system. You want to drain every dollar you can squeeze out of the economy without regard to how destructive that concept is.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


So considering your response, you don't believe the 9th and 10th amendment are proper?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


We have been thinking, and as a result pointed out that you still DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ. Nothing in that quote suggests the government can take money from the more wealthy people for the purpose of giving it to able bodied persons who choose not to take advantage of the education that was available, choose not to work, and are generally productive to society. And that statement has nothing to do with assisting those who CANNOT WORK for some valid reason. That quote of yours has to do with the more wealthy supporting our infrastructure, defense, postal service et al, which gives every able bodied person security by which they can act responsibly.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Hi Ernie, just a couple of tidbits I just finished reading:

Throughout history of mankind, 10% of the world's population own 80% of it's wealth. On average that is. 2% of Russia's population own 90% of it's wealth. 1% of Arab Emirates own 90% of it's wealth. 

That even that is bending the truth. 80% of total value is held in businesses, which are owned by 10% of the population. They do not make that much money, they are just worth that much. 

The true amount that the top 10% richest people actually get to keep is much much smaller.​
The rich invest, the poor eat all the income they have, and the middle class is afraid to do more investing for fear of losing money.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

Racewright, the poor do pay taxes as well as everyone else in the US. They pay sales taxes, fuel taxes, and all the *fees* that congress has enacted in the process of hiding taxes as fees.

All of those taxes are regressive and hurt the more the most.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 6, 2014)

I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric  of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 7, 2014)

Seems like babydaddyto3 has retreated.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





REALLY? Forget summer 2008 BEFORE Dubya's economy crashed?

The cost of gas in June of 2008, the early stages of the heavy summer driving season and during the presidential campaign, was $4.10 per gallon. *The 2008 gas crisis hit its peak one month later with prices averaging $4.11 per gallon
*

Face the facts: A fact check on gas prices - CBS News


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




Got it you have reading comprehension issues...


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



"The farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of this country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." TJefferson



"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


*

Weird, the US paid off the debt once in it's history, 

When The U.S. Paid Off The Entire National Debt (And Why It Didn't Last)

On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

By 1837, the country would be in panic and headed into a massive depression. 



To do that, he took advantage of a huge real-estate bubble that was raging in the Western U.S. The federal government owned a lot of Western land  and Jackson started selling it off.

He was also ruthless on the budget. He blocked every spending bill he could.

"He vetoed, for example, programs to build national highways," Brands says. "He considered these to be unconstitutional in the first place, but bad policy in the second place."

When Jackson took office, the national debt was about $58 million. Six years later, it was all gone. Paid off. And the government was actually running a surplus, taking in more money than it was spending.

That created a new problem: What to do with all that surplus money?

Jackson had already killed off the national bank (which he hated more than debt). So he couldn't put the money there. He decided to divide the money among the states.

But, according to economic historian , the party didn't last for long.

The state banks went a little crazy. They were printing massive amounts of money. The land bubble was out of control.

Andrew Jackson tried to slow everything down by requiring that all government land sales needed to be done with gold or silver. Bad idea.

"It was a huge crash, and the beginning of the longest depression in American history," Gordon says. "It actually lasted six years before the economy began to grow again."

During the depression, the government started borrowing money again.

When The U.S. Paid Off The Entire National Debt (And Why It Didn't Last) : Planet Money : NPR*


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Went to war in WW2? LOL

Yeah, conservatives were REALLY bothered by those wars right?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Oh you don't mind being a moocher of your kids and grandkids, but YOU hated paying for the Gov't YOUR generation wanted. Got it!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...




If you mean 'liberal'  you mean Blue Dogs, I'm sure you do


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



*" I belong to the group of blue dog democrats who want the country to succeed such that it provides the most prosperity possible to the most people. "*

BOY DID I CALL THAT. Sorry NO ONE with a functioning brain calls Blue Dogs liberals!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...





YOU are pretty ignorant aren't you?

" In fact, Federal Taxes are collected to pay for the authorized functions listed in the Constitution as Amended;* and based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights."*

lol


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




False premises, distortions and LIES, the ONLY thing right wingers (BLUE DOGS) EVER have in their tool box!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Got it, you go off on a tangent NOT related to the posit. Typical low info conservative


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



BELIEF OVER FACTS, ALL CONS EVER  HAVE!!!


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

*WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?*


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


*Your taxes are really low, in one chart*











*The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010*

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


*Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950*


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So you can't refute the FACTS of those statements. Thanks


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...



Why didn't he make his money in Africa or China? Oh right, he made it BECAUSE he was born in the USA AND because of the SOCIETY THE US PROVIDED OVER 200+ YEARS!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Oh I think MANY dictators are bad guys, weird how Reagan supported Saddam BEFORE we decided he was 'bad' though. How many other nations are you libertarians going to want to overthrow BECAUSE they are bad guys?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Gawwd you really can't use reason or logic

CONTEXT WAS IN THE THREAD, START WITH THE FIRST POST ON THIS SUBJECT AND GO FROM THERE DUMMY!

 (HINT- The premise was Gov't MADE a lot of money off gas taxes, AND EXXON MADE MUCH LESS THAN THE GOV'T. Hint Exxon didn't fund roads, theirs was ACTUAL PROFIT, not costs like Gov't has)..


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric  of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.



YOU prefer not to use reason, logic or history, you like most right wing conservatives (BLUE DOGS) go on 'feelings' and rhetoric of pulling ones self up by his bootstraps. Ever actually try it? Why can't many do it in China, Mexico, India, etc? Just lazy huh?


----------



## dblack (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric  of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
> ...



Now THAT was funny.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric  of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
> ...



actually China just did it and it elimiated 40% of the world's poverty. Do you understand now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Why didn't he make his money in Africa or China? Oh right, he made it BECAUSE he was born in the USA AND because of the SOCIETY THE US PROVIDED OVER 200+ YEARS!



yes a society based on freedom from big liberal govt. The more freedom and capitalism the more wealth there is.  A liberal pretends East/West Germany never happened.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Your post is stupidity over fact. Your own graph shows the 1% tax increasing and the lowest bracket lower. Every thing else is just projection, something the current administration sucks at.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed.



dear, our Founders based the country on the conservative principle of freedom. THe concept was just applied in China and 40% of the world's poverty was instantly eliminated. Is that bigotry, hatred and greed to a liberal? See why we are positive that liberalism is based on pure ignorance?


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



REALLY? SO GOV'T POLICY  and THEIR INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION DIDN'T DO IT, THE LAZY BASTARDS JUST DECIDED TO WORK ALL OF A SUDDEN? LOL


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't he make his money in Africa or China? Oh right, he made it BECAUSE he was born in the USA AND because of the SOCIETY THE US PROVIDED OVER 200+ YEARS!
> ...




And conservatives pretend free markets EVER worked ANYWHERE EVER!


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed.
> ...



Yes, China is free and NOT ran by commies. That's why conservatives LOVE China soooo much


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



dear, China is rapidly switching to capitalism not communism. Communist intervention slowly starved 60 million! Where are you confused?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Government got out of the way. Exactly what would spur our economy.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 7, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



My GOD you couldn't be any stupider.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 7, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



all over.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 8, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Wrong answer! What we are not called is LEFT WING EXTREMISTS LIKE YOU YELLOW DOGS. We understand that some times people other than you extremist ass holes have the right answer. In fact, that is more often than not. Get a brain, learn how to read reality, think for yourself, and stop parroting the leftwing extremist propaganda.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 8, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric  of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
> ...


*Unlike you, I only use reason, logic and history instead of the propaganda you pull off of radical web sites.*


> you like most right wing conservatives (BLUE DOGS) go on 'feelings' and rhetoric of pulling ones self up by his bootstraps. Ever actually try it? Why can't many do it in China, Mexico, India, etc? Just lazy huh?


One reason the 3rd world workers can't do it comes from their being held down with socialist concepts and too much government control which does not allow it. 

Yes, contrary to you, I do have feelings, and being a liberal without borders I believe in the humanity of man all over the world, not just the US where even our least wealthy people live better than most of the 3rd world (with the minor exceptions of some homeless people who are mostly disabled, mentally or physically) It behooves us to start with that small minority in the US and they help those equally poor all over the world before doing more for our "relative poor" in the US.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 8, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



"The society the U.S. provided?"  Government does not create society, moron.  Charging for the benefits of society would be like charging for the benefit of the English language.  Government didn't create it, and no one owes government a thing for its existence.  The same goes for "society."

That has to be one of the top 10 lamest arguments ever posted in this forum.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 8, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The issue wasn't whether he was a bad guy.  The issue was whether he was a threat to the Western World, and he definitely was.  He was as much of a threat as Adolph Hitler was.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



yes it started by accident when a frustrated and disloyal local official let people grow their own food to end the constant starvation, and it grew from there with more and more freedom from libcommie govt.

Our treasonous libs cant understand it and still push for more and more control of the  
economy.

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." - Thomas Jefferson


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 9, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


There has never been a successful socialist experiment. There have been many successful capitalist economic systems, all of which are based on private enterprise making the primary decisions about production, distribution, and prices. All capitalist systems have various social programs to help the less fortunate, and all produce more prosperity to spread around among all of the people. 

Yes, there is a disparity of income, but, the fact is our system is better for most people than a socialist system where only a token few commissars have any wealth and every one is poor.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 10, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Yes, there is a disparity of income, but,



you sound almost apologetic about it?? The creative geniuses like Gates Jobs Brin Musk are the ones who push evolution further. If we limited them to a common income why would they bother. Why provide disincentives for the creative genius from whom we all benefit in the end? 


Imagine the state of evolution if no animal was allowed to be superior for fear of making the other's feel inferior!


----------



## dblack (Aug 10, 2014)




----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there is a disparity of income, but,
> ...



Good post.  Also, what the class envy/resentment crowd never wants to look at is how many people also prospered  directly or indirectly because of the rich man's climb to wealth?  He couldn't have accomplished such great financial success without benefitting many others along the way.  And even now, how many benefit from the markets the rich provide for expensive things?  How many benefit from the massive taxes the rich pay even if they do manage to shelter income and pay at a smaller percentage than somebody else?  How many have benefitted from the scholarship funds and hospital wings and museum exhibits and other philanthropy almost all the rich engage in?  And the direct and indirect benefits often go on in a ripple effect for generations, long after the rich man has passed on.

The only thing that bugs me about the rich is that I'm not one of them, but I sure don't think that is their fault.


----------



## Abishai100 (Aug 10, 2014)

We know of the folk tale of Robin Hood, the incredible archer from Old England who stole from the rich and gave to the poor and became a hero in the hearts and minds of the masses who yearned for wealth redistribution.

When we make economics contracts as they relate to the governance logistics of a society, we can build competitive markets.  The game that we play implicitly invites 'players' to agree that the reward for winning the game could deservedly go only to the winner.

Unfortunately, with many economics theories regarding Wall Street games, problematic policies regarding trickle-down-economics and over-investing tend to favor the wealthy or give undue hand-outs to the under-privileged.

In order for institutions such as Wall Street to be praised favorably, we need to come up with better 'fight songs' for economic competition and labor.

This is why Robin Hood is such a timelessly appealing figure.  Wealth redistribution is so complex that we are comforted by stories of fortune-reinvention heroes.



Robin Hood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youch (Aug 10, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?




It is immoral, of course. Such is the obvious flaw of liberalism.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 11, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there is a disparity of income, but,
> ...


If you believe I was being apologetic, you missed my point. I was trying to make the individual understand that however HE views our socio-economic system, he is damned lucky we have a system which produces such a wide range of prosperity as we have. I do believe that motivation, incentive, ambition et al are important, and those who make our economy progress deserve higher incomes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 11, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



good so next time there is no need to say, "Yes, it produces inequality, but". You might say it produces massive inequality when heroic figures like Gates Brin Jobs Musk make huge huge contributions to society that average people can only dream about.

Sports produces massive inequality too since some can play them far better than others. Yet the best sports figures are our heros while the the best capitalists are not despite their far more important contributions. This is due to pure liberal ignorance and the liberal success at brainwashing average folks like dumbto3.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 11, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


At 78 I am a little set in the way I talk and write.


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 12, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Sure, it wasn't conservatives race to the bottom and shipping US jobs there

Distortions, myths and fairy tales, the ONLY thing conservatives/libertarians EVER have


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 12, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



You know conservative economics is a failure when they have to keep reminding us how much better our poor is than the poor in 3rd world countries!



Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds good when you read about it in high school, or maybe your first year of college. But once you are out in the real world for say, five, or even six entire minutes, you quickly realize it's a narcissistic, child-like ideology that doesn't actually work and has no basis in reality


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. *He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.*"


----------



## Dad2three (Aug 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





lol, 'small gubrmnt' libertarian.. 

Fucking moron


----------



## zeke (Aug 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Saddam = Hitler you say.
You really are a fucking idiot. No if ands or buts about it. Fucking stupid you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 12, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



The appeal to authority is your favorite logical fallacy


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 12, 2014)

zeke said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



Only a fucking idiot would claim I said Saddam = Hitler.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 12, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



I'm an anarchist, not a small government libertarian.  However, libertarians don't argue that we should never use our military.  Under what circumstance do you believe it's justifiable to use military force?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 12, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



So it follows that "Joe Blow", assuming he was born here, has a right to your property?

Bill Gates got rich and the kid who lived across the street didn't. They both enjoyed the same society and infrastructure. Gates was driven, smart and lucky. He got rich on THAT, not on the backs of citizens.
To take his money or mine, or yours for that matter to give it to the kid across the street who has grown into a lazy, unmotivated loser, is not only morally wrong, but it violates the Constitution.
Now, if Mr Gates or I would care to donate our own money, bypassing the government, we should be encouraged to do so.
However, I suspect, Mr Gates, and I don't care to reward laziness.
That's your prerogative. By all means, pay for his food, housing, medical care. Send his kids to college and pay off his debts, but pay for it yourself, out of your own pocket, for while Mr Gates may have more to give, I don't.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 12, 2014)

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


The entire population has benefited from the prosperity of our country. Even our poor are but relatively poor by virtue of only being less wealthy than those with more. With the exception of just a few who for various reasons have fallen through the huge safety net we provide our poor, our relatively poor are wealthy by world standards.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 12, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


All sane people ARE SURE, "it wasn't conservatives race to the bottom and shipping US jobs there: URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/[/URL] 





> Distortions, myths and fairy tales, the ONLY thing conservatives/libertarians EVER have.


Left wing extremists spout even more distortions, myths and fairy tails than to the conservatives. You are a prime example of spouting propaganda which is all distortions, myths and fairy tales. Even we simple liberals can see that. If and when I see some conservative distortions, myths and fairy tales, I will address them as well.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 12, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Since I was addressing an obvious reality to anyone with a brain, it is obvious you have no brain with which to think. Especially if you believe I was approaching the issue from the standpoint of conservatism. I am thrilled that even our poor are only relatively poor compared to the poor of the world. Now it is time to recognize that as decent human beings we owe assistance to the poor of the world as well as to our own. They best way to do that is to stop whining and crying about the insignificant labor intensive jobs we "let loose" in the process of further improving our own prosperity by creating 1.72 jobs for every one we do let loose. The concept is good for everyone, and the sane thinking people of the world understand that, not the stupid extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. If you were capable of pragmatism you would understand this.....no, you are too stupid to be pragmatic.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 12, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


Even Ben Franklin got some things wrong if you believe that.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 12, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Old Dummy 2 three should try to figure out how much Mr Gates made from sales outside of the US. Do you think he is stupid enough to believe that there are more computers running Microsoft programs in the US than in the rest of the world? Do you believe he is that stupid?

We (300+ million US citizens)  live in a world with 7 billion other humans. Our common crop of left wing extremists care more for some Union worker making $50,000 a year than some poor African, or Indian, or Bangladeshi making and living off $3 to $5 a day, having one meal a day or less, living out of garbage dumps and in the streets, or next to a rural road.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 12, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



yes, my God, that's just what we need: some liberal Nazi deciding what's superfluous and stealing it from us at the point of a gun!!!!

Thankfully Frankin had many points of view:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 12, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


What most of these left wing nuts don't like to admit is FASCISTS ARE LEFT WING NUT SOCIALISTS JUST LIKE THE SOVIETS WERE LEFT WING NUT SOCIALISTS. The difference? Fascist governments only controlled production, distribution and price where as the Soviets OWNED the production, distribution and prices. Somehow those fools have convinced themselves that Fascism is evil and "socialism" is good. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 13, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



yes, the liberal shows his Nazi fascist tendencies when he wants govt to decide which of our  material possessions are superfluous to our lives and then take them away at the point of a gun!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 13, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


It is because I am liberal, and a humanist, I believe we owe assistance to all the people who are poverty stricken, starting with the most poor first.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 13, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...


The only moron on the thread is you dumbo 2 three. And I doubt you do any fxxxing any more.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 13, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> You know conservative economics is a failure when they have to keep reminding us how much better our poor is than the poor in 3rd world countries!



why, if the poor here are 100 times richer than in  Africa?? Do you ever try to think before you post? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 15, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> > You know conservative economics is a failure when they have to keep reminding us how much better our poor is than the poor in 3rd world countries!
> ...



Ed, there are left wing fanatics who call themselves liberal and there are just liberals. The former, like dumbo2three are only liberal when it comes to Union members and other special groups IN THE US alone. They, like dumbo2three, don't give a crap about the poor people in the rest of the world, no matter how much worse off than our relative poor.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 15, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad2three said:
> ...



dear, Saddam was always bad but he neutralized Iran much the way Stalin neutralized HItler. Are you able to understand?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 18, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> why, if the poor here are 100 times richer than in  Africa?? Do you ever try to think before you post? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?


It is nothing but ignorance. He doesn't give a damned about people of the third world. He is selfish and greedy and wants to hoard the "good life" only to US citizens.

The left wing extremists use all sorts of straw man arguments: They emit too much pollution, or, they are paid slave wages (based on how far they would go in the US) which will buy food for the workers family and a roof over their heads.

What the LWrs refuse to acknowledge is, with jobs comes security; with security comes labor revolution; with a labor revolution comes better pay, benefits, and on job safety. How else can to 3rd world workers EVER gain a decent life style if we keep hoarding the jobs?


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> I'm an anarchist, not a small government libertarian.  However, libertarians don't argue that we should never use our military.  Under what circumstance do you believe it's justifiable to use military force?



State coercion is a valid tool whenever you want someone to do something and they're just being a stubborn jerk about it. As long as you got the votes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 18, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> How else can to 3rd world workers EVER gain a decent life style if we keep hoarding the jobs?



I don't think hoarding is the right word. China can have all the jobs it  needs without international trade. Yes, with international trade comes more competition and more rapid development but we did fine before China and China could do fine with us. Jobs are not ours to hoard. Make sense?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 18, 2014)

dblack said:


> State coercion is a valid tool whenever you want someone to do something and they're just being a stubborn jerk about it. As long as you got the votes.



when its kill or be killed, like when the Nazis are attacking, thats a good time for the military!!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 18, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> I don't think hoarding is the right word. China can have all the jobs it  needs without international trade. Yes, with international trade comes more competition and more rapid development but we did fine before China and China could do fine with us. Jobs are not ours to hoard. Make sense?


China is but one country. In spite of the fact as proved by studies, off shoring does not cause a loss of jobs in the US. To a thinking person, hoarding may not sound like the right word, but when discussing the issue with dumbo2three, that is exactly what he wants, such that the rest of the world could just go to hell and back. "*Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says."  <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/</>*


----------



## Friends (Aug 19, 2014)

hendrickL said:


> Very interesting topic...


Not really. People are simply expressing their attitudes. What interests me are facts and insights.


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 19, 2014)

Dad2three said:


> Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds good when you read about it in high school, or maybe your first year of college.


Reminds me of the guy that kept digging into me over  non-state ideologies on this forum, to the point I figured I might as well combine ideas from Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchist-Communism (knowing he got into rage whenever I equated one with the other). But I like to push libertarians into explaining why they only go half way rather than advocating eliminating the 'state' or 'private' problem altogether.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> when its kill or be killed, like when the Nazis are attacking, thats a good time for the military!!



The point was about wealth redistribution, try to keep up...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> , but when discussing the issue with dumbo2three, that is exactly what he wants, such that the rest of the world could just go to hell and back.



well true enough a liberal will lack the IQ to understand trade. According to their logic the USA does not benefit from trade with China and Connecticut does not benefit from trade with Mississippi. Its 100% stupid and 100 lliberal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

hipeter924 said:


> Reminds me of the guy that kept digging into me over  non-state ideologies on this forum, to the point I figured I might as well combine ideas from Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchist-Communism (knowing he got into rage whenever I equated one with the other). But I like to push libertarians into explaining why they only go half way rather than advocating eliminating the 'state' or 'private' problem altogether.



libertarians like our Founders were  not anarchists and so had some limited use for government. Do you understand now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> "*Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says." *



well it would depend on the circumstances. If China instantly switches to capitalism at 5% the American wage it would  suck millions of jobs away instantly. I see no reason to believe new jobs will be created here as fast as the old ones are sucked away to China.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> I'm an anarchist, not a small government libertarian.  However, libertarians don't argue that we should never use our military.  Under what circumstance do you believe it's justifiable to use military force?



when its life and death, like when the Nazis are attacking!


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> well it would depend on the circumstances. If China instantly switches to capitalism at 5% the American wage it would  suck millions of jobs away instantly. I see no reason to believe new jobs will be created here as fast as the old ones are sucked away to China.



Well, when you say "as fast" that's a speed question, but offshoring is great for our economy, so it does create jobs here because of that.  Three big ones.

1)  Consumers save by paying less for the same thing and have $$$ to buy other things

2)  Jobs are created directly in the US as processes change, they don't just get moved offshore.  What is produced needs to be managed, distributed, shipped, ...

3)  US companies are competing with foreign companies that are offshoring, so we are protecting US jobs by protecting US companies.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> when its kill or be killed, like when the Nazis are attacking, thats a good time for the military!!



Any question you ask bripat about how anarchy works, he answers with the assumption that we have everything else we have now and only the one thing you asked him about is different.  He's a hand waiver like every other anarchist I've ever known, he can't remotely describe it.   Just pretend we have everything except one thing at a time and he'll explain why we don't need government for that one thing.  

Don't get me wrong, he's a good guy, and when you stay beyond limited government, he makes a lot of great arguments.  It's just crossing from limited to no government he's got no idea, but he knows it will work.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Well, when you say "as fast" that's a speed question, .



yes its a speed question meaning that if China and India have 2 billion workers at $1.00 an hour they can be sucking our jobs away for 100 years before we rebalance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> 1)  Consumers save by paying less for the same thing and have $$$ to buy other things
> .



which is no help if the other things are also made more cheaply in China and India!!


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yes its a speed question meaning that if China and India have 2 billion workers at $1.00 an hour they can be sucking our jobs away for 100 years before we rebalance.



So you actually think that when American consumers spend less to buy the same thing, that harms us?  LOL, sure it does.   

So when you were planning to buy a toaster for $50, and wow, you got one for $30, you take the $20 out of your wallet and set it on fire?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> 2)  Jobs are created directly in the US as processes change, they don't just get moved offshore.  What is produced needs to be managed, distributed, shipped, ...
> 
> .



yes but what was produced in the USA needed to be managed too so I see  no net gain if Chinese/Indian production needs to be managed too


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > yes its a speed question meaning that if China and India have 2 billion workers at $1.00 an hour they can be sucking our jobs away for 100 years before we rebalance.
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> 3)   we are protecting US jobs by protecting US companies.



no idea what that means


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yes but what was produced in the USA needed to be managed too so I see  no net gain if Chinese/Indian production needs to be managed too



Some yes, some no.  I'm not just talking about managing the workers, I'm talking about managing the process.  Offshoring IT isn't just negative jobs, it changes jobs.  And typically the higher paying ones are here.  And there are more of them.

Fear, fear, oh fear.  The Democrats love you, man.  Fear is their chief product.  #2 is greed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> So you actually think that when American consumers spend less to buy the same thing, that harms us?  LOL, sure it does.
> 
> So when you were planning to buy a toaster for $50, and wow, you got one for $30, you take the $20 out of your wallet and set it on fire?



no fire, you buy more stuff increasingly made in China /India causing even more job loss


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> no idea what that means



Then why did you only copy half the sentence?  The other half said why.  What about that did you not understand?  US companies are competing with foreign companies that outsource.  Seriously, you don't know what that means?  If they can reduce costs and we can't, what happens to their sales?

It's hard to debate someone in hysterical fear.  But as a business leader, MBA career manager and management consultant, I can tell you we not only do fine in open markets, we kick ass.  We don't need or want your help.  Pass.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> .  Offshoring IT isn't just negative jobs, it changes jobs.  And typically the higher paying ones are here.  And there are more of them.


I'm afraid most agree that the  jobs are at Walmart and Seven Eleven and are low paid. This is why wages are going down not up!


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> no fire, you buy more stuff increasingly made in China /India causing even more job loss



Buying more stuff with the same amount of money costs "more" jobs?  LOL, that's clueless.  That's what fear does to you.  We are the greatest country in the world because we were not consumed in fear like you.  Unfortunately, Democrats are packaging fear very effectively.  The irony is in trying to save us, you are destroying us.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> If they can reduce costs and we can't, what happens to their sales?



their sales and jobs increase while our sales and jobs decrease.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> I'm afraid most agree that the  jobs are at Walmart and Seven Eleven and are low paid. This is why wages are going down not up!



That is such a narrow slice of the economy.  You know what, Obama, Harry and Nancy are right, you just go ahead and believe them with my blessing.  You are going to anyway.  We can't win, we're losers, we're lazy and we need government to protect us.  Just go with that.  You're not processing anything I am telling you.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> their sales and jobs increase while our sales and jobs decrease.



That's correct, so you don't get the connection to that and what you are arguing?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Buying more stuff with the same amount of money costs "more" jobs?  LOL, that's clueless.  .




I'm afraid so if the more stuff we buy is made off shore. When we buy offshore what was made in the USA that decreases jobs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> That's correct, so you don't get the connection to that and what you are arguing?



no of course not,   why not try to put the connection into words??


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> no of course not,   why not try to put the connection into words??



Sure, you've processed them so well so far. It's a global economy.  Our companies aren't operating in a vacuum.  American business leaders have it covered, we are the best in the world.  It is trying to "protect" us that is constantly harming us.  Stop helping, please....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> That is such a narrow slice of the economy..



its not narrow that's why wages are going down in the USA not up!! Guess where wages are going up? Thats correct, in China and India which are growing at 10% a year.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> its not narrow that's why wages are going down in the USA not up!! Guess where wages are going up? Thats correct, in China and India which are growing at 10% a year.



Wages are going down because walmart sells stuff cheaper, got it.  LOL, it's sad, we need to teach economics in high school.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> American business leaders have it covered, we are the best in the world..



you wish American business leaders were the best in the world and perhaps they are but even they can't compete with the newly on stream natural resources of China and India which explains why unemployment is up here and wages are down..


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Wages are going down because walmart sells stuff cheaper, got it.



yes and when average wages are going down, not up, that means we are are getting poorer not richer. That is bad, not good.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yes and when average wages are going down, not up, that means we are are getting poorer not richer. That is bad, not good.



Did you know that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot?  You know, like the one you just did...


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yoou wish American business leaders were the best in the world and perhaps they are but even they can't compete with the natural resources of China and India which explains why unemployment is up here and wages are down..



No, we don't "compete" with it, we leverage it.  It's a global economy, you're still living in the 1930s.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Did you know that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot?  You know, like the one you just did...



please say exactly which stat was made up on the spot


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> No, we don't "compete" with it, we leverage it.  It's a global economy, you're still living in the 1930s.



if we leverage it successfully why are wages down and employment up?


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> please say exactly which stat was madae up on the spot



Why don't you read the post I quoted?  I once went back and showed you the answer was part of what you cut out, you do the work this time.

Debating a coward is getting old.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> if we leverage it successfully why are wages down and employment up?



You are why, and the more you get your way, the more it happens.  Our government is doing everything it can to suck up to those consumed in fear and greed, you know you, and harming business.  And the more it works, the more they blame us and the more you empower them as you become all the more wrapped in fear.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Why don't you read the post I quoted?  I once went back and showed you the answer was part of what you cut out, you do the work this time.
> 
> Debating a coward is getting old.



if you had a statistic from me that was made up I'm sure you'd be very happy to post it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> You are why, and the more you get your way, the more it happens.  Our government is doing everything it can to suck up to those consumed in fear and greed, you know you, and harming business.  And the more it works, the more they blame us and the more you empower them as you become all the more wrapped in fear.



why change the subject rather than answer the question? Once again:if we leverage it successfully why are wages down and employment up in the USA?


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> if you had a statistic from me that was made up I'm sure you'd be very happy to post it.



I did, I actually quoted it in the line you asked me about.  I've also informed you that I'm not going to keep going back and retrieving things you cut out of my posts.  I did it once, that was your chance.  Now you get it.  It's not hard.


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> why change the subject rather than answer the question? Once again:if we leverage it successfully why are wages down and employment up in the USA?



I directly answered the question, coward.  America is doomed!  We're all going to fail!  We can't compete!  Protect us, oh Obama, protect us!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> I directly answered the question,!



if so tell us why wages are down and unemployment is up?


----------



## kaz (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> if so tell us why wages are down and unemployment is up?



I already did, government has gotten ever increasingly oppressive on our businesses.  And the more you get, the more you want.  When a solution isn't working, try the other direction...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> I already did, government has gotten ever increasingly oppressive on our businesses..



actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 19, 2014)

Friends said:


> Not really. People are simply expressing their attitudes. What interests me are facts and insights.


I assume you  accept studies using actual details and data to come to a conclusion?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Then why did you only copy half the sentence?  The other half said why.  What about that did you not understand?  US companies are competing with foreign companies that outsource.  Seriously, you don't know what that means?  If they can reduce costs and we can't, what happens to their sales?
> 
> It's hard to debate someone in hysterical fear.  But as a business leader, MBA career manager and management consultant, I can tell you we not only do fine in open markets, we kick ass.  We don't need or want your help.  Pass.


Especially since off shoring does not cost the US a loss of jobs as proved by studies.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 19, 2014)

kaz said:


> Did you know that 80% of statistics are made up on the spot?  You know, like the one you just did...


Wages may have gone up Kaz, but buying power has gone down for a large group of Americans.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Especially since off shoring does not cost the US a loss of jobs as proved by studies.



how is that possible? If 500 billion Chinese came here and were willing to work for $1 per hour  would that cost Americans jobs?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry



You're an idiot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 19, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> You're an idiot.


 argumentum ad hominem  from typical liberal without IQ for substance


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> libertarians like our Founders were  not anarchists and so had some limited use for government. Do you understand now?


The 'libertarians' of today are different in their values than the Founders, especially on their economic and social policies - and the meaning of the term libertarian has also changed. Don't see how you can compare them, any more than you can compare the Democratic Party or Republican Party to their party founding platform.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> how is that possible? If 500 billion Chinese came here and were willing to work for $1 per hour  would that cost Americans jobs?


Ed: 1. 500 million Chinese could not come here. 2. If they did and they were legal they would be paid minimum wage, or more depending on their training. Either way, if it were possible think of the boost to our economy with all those new consumers. The food industry alone would make a killing. But, their remaining in China and being part of the upward mobility of labor there, they will still be a commanding consumer society larger than that of the US. Think! No country or its workers have ever gotten prosperous by being economics protectionists.

But on the side or reality, for every job sent overseas, 1.72 jobs are created here in the US. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 19, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> argumentum ad hominem  from typical liberal without IQ for substance



I'm not a liberal, and it's not an argument.  It's just a simple statement of fact.


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry



You obviously don't own a business or work in management.  I'm not sure how you believe that liberal lawyers telling you what's in their own self serving interest know more about economics than economists, but you obviously are unshakable in your belief that they do.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry


Don&#8217;t blame the 1% for America&#8217;s pay gap - Fortune


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:
			
		

> Wages may have gone up Kaz, but buying power has gone down for a large group of Americans.



I am hoping EdwardBaiamonte posts his dissertation where he proves the field of economics is wrong.  That would be an interesting read.  Nothing so far.  Until he does, I'm still going to believe the field of economics isn't wrong, Edward is...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



are you saying that wages for americans are going up according to economists?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry
> ...



economists all agree the u6 is at 12.3% and wages are going down. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > argumentum ad hominem  from typical liberal without IQ for substance
> ...


of course as a liberal you lack the IQ to say why you think its a fact.


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No, my post doesn't say that anywhere.  If you read the conversation, which you don't do, it was in reference to this bogus claim as to why jobs are going down.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Strawman


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> this bogus claim as to why jobs are going down.



so why are jobs going down?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



we have fewer jobs at less pay and the most free trade ever. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



First of all, you're wrong that we have the most free trade ever.  You're wrong that even if it were true you could assume a causal relationship as if that were the only factor.  You're also wrong that free trade harms jobs.

I'm still looking for the link to your dissertation where you prove the field of economics wrong.  Working on that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> I'm still looking for the link to your dissertation where you prove the field of economics wrong.  Working on that?



prove them wrong about what?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You're calling Brian a "liberal?" 

ROFLMAO.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



notice how afraid you are to say what he is?
What does your fear tell us?


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > You're calling Brian a "liberal?"
> ...



Hmmm...it's fear that keeps us from calling an anarchist a liberal?  And that's from a guy who's solidly arguing for the left?

You're a confused little boy.  When you figure things out, let us know.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> notice how afraid you are to say what he is?
> What does your fear tell us?



I've known Brian for over 30 years.

What he is, is extremely well versed in economics. He is a dedicated capitalist with unfaltering dedication to free market principles.

I'm proud to call him my friend.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> Hmmm...it's fear that keeps us from calling an anarchist a liberal? .



are you saying he's an anarchist, but not a liberal?

 "He is a dedicated capitalist with unfaltering dedication to free market principles."


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...it's fear that keeps us from calling an anarchist a liberal? .
> ...



I'm saying you are a ranting idiot.  What are you talking about?  What does an anarchist have in common with an authoritarian leftist?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> are you saying he's an anarchist, but not a liberal?
> 
> "He is a dedicated capitalist with unfaltering dedication to free market principles."



Like myself, and I believe Kaz, Brian is a minarchist. Of the three, I suspect I am the most liberal. But then, I am liberal in a Tom Paine way.


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying he's an anarchist, but not a liberal?
> ...



Brian calls himself an anarchist, and he seems to be actually that in our discussions.  I call myself a "small government libertarian,"  but a minarchist is pretty accurate.  The things I would add to minarchist as I understand them are roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights.  Maybe minarchist could include those, I'm not sure.   

Here's my definition of small government libertarian:

What is a small government libertarian? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying he's an anarchist, but not a liberal?
> ...



"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute." -Tom Paine

-- Thomas Paine


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



And you think we have free trade when government regulates and taxes the crap out of it.  You're not a classic liberal, you're a stereotypical leftist authoritarian one.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> Brian calls himself an anarchist,



an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

kaz said:


> And you think we have free trade when government regulates and taxes the crap out of it..



If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Brian calls himself an anarchist,
> ...



Pizza is a rotund mound of California igloo slobber


----------



## kaz (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > And you think we have free trade when government regulates and taxes the crap out of it..
> ...



I'll pass, no one as stupid as you are has $10,000, but here you go.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> We have fewer jobs at less pay and the most free trade ever. Sorry to rock your world.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.



Utter nonsense. An anarchist seeks no government at all - a Communist seeks total government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.
> ...



so how would that work anyway?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> so how would that work anyway?



Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > so how would that work anyway?
> ...



The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided.  Government never allows itself to be limited.

Private Law &#8211; LewRockwell.com



> As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government’s advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law.
> 
> Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes — the government employees — regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, “producing” ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent’s goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation’s wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be.
> 
> In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Private Law &#8211; LewRockwell.com


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > so how would that work anyway?
> ...



so then nobody  is willing to support anarchy? Its sort of idiotic to even have it around for discussion given that just a hand full in the entire country support it and they are mostly communists tryng to start a revolution that might  lead from anarchy to communism. Many communist anarchists opposed Marx because they thought is far slowly methods would never work.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 21, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided.  Government never allows itself to be limited.
> 
> Private Law &#8211; LewRockwell.com



Yes, we disagree on this. Which is the main reason I noted that I am far more liberal than you. Anarchy is mob rule - until a strongman seizes power and imposes his will on others.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> so then nobody  is willing to support anarchy? Its sort of idiotic to even have it around for discussion given that just a hand full in the entire country support it and they are mostly communists tryng to start a revolution that might  lead from anarchy to communism. Many communist anarchists opposed Marx because they thought is far slowly methods would never work.



I like you Ed, so no insult intended by this, but you are out of your depth here.


----------



## kaz (Aug 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided.  Government never allows itself to be limited.
> ...



That is the thing.  The anarchists have this idea of rugged individuals fiercely independent, and they probably would want to live that way.  Most people would want to be taken care of, like the sheep they are.  Look at all the liberals, they're going to join up with whoever manipulates them, form armies and start conquering.  Then the rest of us would band together because that's the only way to protect ourselves.  Then we end up with government again.

Better to just fight for the protection from mob rule without the wealth distribution now. Even with one government, the left is all about mob rule.  You can't escape it.  Any of these goals are going to lose anyway, liberals breed like rabbits.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 21, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Actually Ed, our national prosperity has gone up. Another thing, it is not so much a stagnation of wages of the middle class as it is the increasing prosperity of the top .01%. The recession cut into the wages of everyone, and the jobs available for everyone, but the economy has been surging since the recession. And personally, since I throw out even the semblance of a "zero sum" concept of wealth, I don't see the top .01% taking any wealth away from the less wealthy. I earned what I got in blood and sweat. The rich did not hold me back a dime.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 21, 2014)

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Tyranny of the majority seems to fit your description.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.
> ...


Effectively, there cannot be Communism or real Socialism without an autocratic/dictatorial government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



yes, and pure anarchy is idiotic


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


The rich have provided me with the opportunity to succeed in my field and to live fairly comfortably in my semi-retirement.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> the economy has been surging since the recession.



China is surging with about 7-10% GDP for 30 years. Care to think again.


----------



## kaz (Aug 21, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> The rich have provided me with the opportunity to succeed in my field and to live fairly comfortably in my semi-retirement.



I've owned my business for five years, and no one has ever quit.  Business owners know if we hire the right people and take care of them, they will take care of us.  I can go on vacation for a week and not worry about the business at all. However, that is because I have hired the right people, trained and supported them and worked with them to establish and document procedures.  I also deal with staff who can't cut it and get rid of them.  That is critical to a healthy business.  None of my good employees were ever threatened by my firing the bad ones.

Without great ownership and management though, it all falls apart.  The employees can't do those things themselves.  Government sure as hell can't do it.  Even when you do it well and have great staff, they have no idea how much hits me dealing with government, financing, doing deals, making payroll.  And if I am not compensated for it, I am not going to do it.  Period.   Liberals are idiots.

I'm glad you get it, Ernie.


----------



## KissMy (Aug 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> China is surging with about 7-10% GDP for 30 years. Care to think again.



 China is a Communist Country that has been growing at 15%.

November 2013 The Chinese ruling Communist Party said it plans to let markets play a “decisive” role in allocating resources as part of a significant economic overhaul, marking a shift from past statements that described a “basic” role for the markets in the country’s tightly-regulated economy. They pledge for economic and overall reforms by 2020.

Now China is only growing at 7.5% in 2014.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 22, 2014)

Ernie S. said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Me too. I have been retired for 27 years, went back to grad school to get a Masters degree and an Ed.S, then did free lance consulting when I felt like it. Stopped doing that 15 years ago because it was eating into my play time. Cast, reel in, jerk, STRIKE, fight, reel in, clean fish, eat!


----------



## Friends (Aug 22, 2014)

What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?

The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.

Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 22, 2014)

Friends said:


> What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?
> 
> The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.
> 
> Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.



You're delusional if you think most Americans benefit from most of the spending of the federal government.  Most Americans are positively harmed by the federal government.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 22, 2014)

Friends said:


> What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?
> 
> The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. Most Americans benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy that is paid for by steeply progressive taxation.
> 
> Since Bill Clinton left office the standard of living for most Americans has declined while the rich have gotten richer. An economy like that does not promote a healthy society. A true conservative should find such an economy to be disturbing.



Congratulations.

Virtually EVERYTHING you claim is utterly false. It's nearly amazing that you could spew such nonsense in complete contrast to established fact.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2014)

kaz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > yes but what was produced in the USA needed to be managed too so I see  no net gain if Chinese/Indian production needs to be managed too
> ...



No idea what point you are trying to make? China and India have added 500 million very low wage workers with more to come  and that is taking millions and millions of jobs from the USA. Now you understand one of the reasons unemployment is up and wages are down.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2014)

Friends said:


> The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top.



of course thats a liberal lie!! Its happening here becuase liberals have destroyed the public schools and the American family. Then, you add liberal corporate taxes, liberal unions, and 20 million liberal illegals and you see that in reality liberals have declared war on the middle and lower class.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2014)

KissMy said:


> China is a Communist Country that has been growing at 15%.



want to be $10,000???


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > so how would that work anyway?
> ...



A few interesting comments. By the way hi there.

Allow me.

First of all roads

I will grant you that the highway system isn't ass essential to the national defense as it once was, BUT it IS essential to promote commerce within and between the states and that commerce creates revenue which is taxed, so without the roads taxes will decrease.  Certainly the government has a self interest in making sure business flows across the nations highways.

Second of all, schools.

While I personally believe the federal government should have no more than an advisory role in how each state runs their schools, we must recognize that the federal government absolutely has a vested interest in the education of young Americans. If private schools were the only option than many people simply wouldn't be able to send their kids and many others who COULD send their kids would choose no to, out of ignorance, or sloth. Unless you propose some sort of ACA nightmare amalgamation where the  government forces people to buy a spiecifc product (IE private schooling for children)

Now onto each community doing as they please. In many way our founding fathers did exactly this, for instance while drafting the COTUS many of the states themselves had official religions. The founding fathers themselves seen no conflict in this as the COTUS was meant SOLELY to apply to federal government ( of course, using this logic one must also admit that communities and even states are not bound by the second amendment and may restrict gun ownership at their choosing depending on state constitutions, but that's another topic entirely)

Now, on to the thread topic. Is wealth redistribution moral? Well, first we probably need to acknowledge that the OP was probably referring to so called entitlement programs, not public roads, or military, or tax subsidies or what have you. So, the 125 plus pages of people arguing about those programs have nothing to do with the actual topic. I lament that people can't stay on point.

So, are government welfare programs moral? The reality is, there is no right or wrong answer to that question, what's moral to you may not be moral to me, etc etc.

The good news, or maybe bad depending on how you look at it, is that our government is in noway required to be moral. you can read the COTUS until you are blue in the face and you will not find the world moral written anywhere in there, so the answer to question is irrelevant in terms of should we provide welfare.

The welfare program has been voted on and it has been determined that we should have such; and as Americans we should accept that or work to get it changed through the proper system, not scream about its immoral or what have you, because morality is irrelevant in the eyes of government.

What bothers me is that most of those who support these types of programs generally either downplay the amount of fraud present in these programs or dishonestly try to turn the conversation to one about such things as tax deductions and such.

Don't people realize that if you have to lie and deflect in order to defend a program, that program probably isn't a very good program?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




pretty long winded. Why not get to the point. Are you liberal or conservative and why!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



How would whether I'm liberal or conservative have anything to do with the point of this thread?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



liberals like wealth distribution while conservatives don't.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Again , what does what a person likes have to do with whether something is moral or not? The answer of course is nothing. Which proves my point , the government shouldn't be deciding policy on morality.


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > What about the morality of wealth redistribution to those who are already wealthy?
> ...


The natural tendency of capitalism is to distribute wealth to whatever person or groups that can ever establish a monopoly on a product or idea, or distribute a product or idea most effectively. In between that you have financial institutions, which attempt to profit from this distribution of wealth, some of those institutions are corrupt and inefficient - and true free market economists would have demanded that there be no bailouts so that those institutions would have 'rightly collapsed' in 2008-10. 

As for 'progressive taxation', most countries benefit most from flat tax structures that don't provide special benefits to any income group, and don't allow exemptions from taxation - but don't require people or businesses to pay any more than is reasonable. 

For instance, if a country taxes those earning 10,000-20,000 a year at 15%, those earning 25,000-100,000 20%, and those earning above 100,000 30% but keeps it at a flat tax rate is more tolerable. But some would argue that taxes should be the same like a flat tax rate of 15-20% or so for all income groups. That said, business tax is even more complex because of off-shore activities, paying employees and so on (so flat taxes are more beneficial to businesses too).

Lastly, Bill Clinton was no 'Keynesian', in fact his administration carried out de-regulation of the financial sector and agricultural concerns, not to mention put in place even more substantial corporate welfare subsidies. Democrats shouldn't look at Bill Clinton's administration as anything but a wolf in sheep's clothing, but more often than not because he wears the 'Democrat' label and is likable, they can turn a blind eye to the questionable legislation passed while he was in office.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 22, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Again , what does what a person likes have to do with whether something is moral or not? The answer of course is nothing.



dear, a conservative will not like wealth distribution and think it immoral. A liberal is a bigot who thinks he's morally superior because he likes more and more welfare redistribution for all. Isn't thinking fun?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 22, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Again , what does what a person likes have to do with whether something is moral or not? The answer of course is nothing.
> ...



And I reiterate, we don't govern based on what is moral, so therefor the question of is welfare moral is moot. And so to is the question of whether I am a conservative or a liberal for purposes of this topic.

Furthermore, I find it repugnant to assume that all conservatives are against welfare and all liberals are for it, because if that is true than all conservatives and all liberals are useless slugs who subscribe to political dogma rather than thinking for themselves.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 23, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


What seems to be happening is, not an increase in wages for the middle class, but spreading the wealth around to those below or on the cusp of the middle class. Nut what is absolute is, wealth is not a zero sum game. The more wealthy ARE NOT DETRACTING FROM THE WEALTH OF THE LESS WEALTHY.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 23, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > the economy has been surging since the recession.
> ...


It is not a matter of "thinking." It is a matter of looking at the data.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 23, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post

In addition, our prosperity has grown because of outsourcing labor intensive low paying jobs all the while helping to create a mass market for US goods over the long haul. In India alone there is a 300+million middle class and more going up as we speak. Keeping all the menial jobs at home does not help our labor force, it frees them for the more complex type of labor they are beginning to enjoy.


----------



## zeke (Aug 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> It is not a matter of "thinking." It is a matter of looking at the data.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post



You didn't read your own link now did you? Read the paragraph where it states that at best the effect is neutral because the .72 figure that was quoted was statistically insignificant.

Try again to prove the sending jobs that Americans used to perform overseas is now creating MORE jobs in the USA than what was lost. .72 will not convince anyone. Except you evidently. But then, you are a right winger and will believe just about anything that is harmful to my country.


----------



## zeke (Aug 24, 2014)

Yea lets send all the good paying manufacturing jobs that pay an average of 25 dollars an hour out of the country and replace them with 10 dollar an hour service sector jobs and then tell the Americans that lost their good paying jobs how much better they have it with out that good paying job.

You are an idiot dude. You probably think? that Americans are enjoying a rising standard of living from all those low paying service sector jobs. Right?

I know, you are comparing our standard of living to India. Right? Maybe you could move to India and get you one of those fine jobs. Yes?


----------



## kaz (Aug 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The objective of liberalism is to even the slices of pie no matter how small they make the pie in their quest to do it.  I want more pie, I'm not jealous of how much someone else got as long as I got what I earned.  And in a free market, we can all earn as much as we want.


----------



## kaz (Aug 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Unfortunately, while what you say is true, it counters the Democrat's messages of fear and greed, so no sale...


----------



## dcraelin (Aug 24, 2014)

I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.  These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need?  How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


I can't help it if the left wingers deny the facts of empirically and statistically proved what is true.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 24, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.  These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need?  How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?


Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.

A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > I think something both the left and the right could get behind is eliminating the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.  These bonds go to fund some of the most corrupt local boondoggles you can imagine. All in local "redistribution" schemes to favored contractors. How many convention centers does the nation need?  How many taxpayer subsidized stadiums?
> ...



The most basic problem with redistribution is thats its suicidal. It makes those who get the free stuff dependent and less rather than more productive. With time the need just grows and grows until everyone is poor. Libs lack the IQ to understand the simple process.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 24, 2014)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


I agree with that part which suggests welfare is habituating when given to people who can work and choose not to. I don't believe it will have an effect on non recipients and those who CAN'T WORK need the assistance.


----------



## dcraelin (Aug 24, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.
> 
> A little anecdote from the past. In the comic strip Pogo, the Professor Owl and the Coach Albert the alligator, were at odds. The Owl wanted a new, larger and more efficient library. Albert wanted a "bowl" type stadium. In the hearings one of Albert's statements, "where are you going to find 60,000 paying customers to tromp through a library?" Within days the Louisiana State Legislature voted to make the LSU U into a bowl. Within a year there was enough profit to pay for the library many times over and money to fund the less popular sports for both men and women.



Well I was thinking about pro stadiums mostly.......but I doubt that even College Stadiums are all that beneficial.....how many paying customers were going to the original reasonably priced stadium?.........how many paying customers should really be paying something to the Student athletes?..... how much cheaper would it be to just purchase the library?.....or to fund less popular sports.........how many star student athletes really get a good education?.............and it is redistribution, so not sure if your being hypocritical on that.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 24, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > Conference centers I may agree with, if they don't produce a profit. Stadiums, I categorically disagree.
> ...


It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.

Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.


----------



## dcraelin (Aug 25, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.
> 
> Pro-stadiums make money for the local tax payers as well, usually recovering the cost in just a couple of years, then the rest is gravy.



Well I know that pro-stadiums are rip-offs.....non-biased studies have shown so...... they cannibalize existing entertainment dollars for one thing....Your endorsement of them calls into question your endorsement of College stadiums........

Also, Is it fair for taxpayer funded entities to compete with free market based businesses? Such as your sugar mill example. 

Also, like I pointed to before, the real draw isnt the stadium but the play....the athletes, which are not compensated.

Regardless of all that, the appropriateness of using tax-exempt bonds is still in question. If colleges want to build stadiums.....if they see a benefit....then they should perhaps do so with taxable bonds....All forms of borrowing should be equal on a taxation basis.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 25, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.
> ...


Pro stadiums are not a rip off and it ignorance of reality which causes you to believe that. Nothing can or ever will call my endorsement of college stadiums into question. I know for a fact, that college stadiums pay for themselves, as do pro-stadiums. Without the stadium sufficient attendance to pay are insufficient to even justify the team. The stadiums are not the draw, but they are very important and their size, depending on the popularity of the team is a major issue which anyone with even must a modicum of economics understanding knows.

The Sugar mill is a teaching institution, and without it the private sugar business would have lost money over the years because of its operation and its teaching tool. Amateur athletics cannot be compensated. At most they can get sports scholarships to include meals in many cases.

Tax exemption of  bonds make them more attractive, so that shoots that ignorant suggestion to hell and back. Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds. In addition, variations in interest rates make for inequality in borrowing too, but it an important tool for the lending business. Humans are born equal in the eyes of God, but they are not equal in productivity, honesty, creditworthiness, or ability to make positive choices. The inability to make positive choices is what separates the successful from the deadbeats. (and understand, I am not talking about the people WHO CAN'T make choices work for them because they are physically or mentally disabled.) Your concept of "equal" is totally ignorant.

If you are wondering why I am impatient with you, it is because after a reasonable explanation you came back and addressed the same stupid issues. We are done.


----------



## dcraelin (Aug 27, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



WE are done huh......good because tho
Your reply on the sugar mill makes some sense............the rest of the post does not. Your commentary on bonds is particularly wacky, "Not only should all borrowing be taxable based on the purpose but the need to attract buyers of those bonds." after saying "Tax exemption of  bonds make them more attractive"......maybe u just mistyped something.......Giving a tax break on something makes it more attractive, yes, that could justify giving tax breaks on virtually everything........every purchase.......it really isnt an argument.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 27, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


You are so full of it you make reason completely out of touch. Your concept of pro-sports stadiums being undesirable means you have never researched the issue. The concept of eliminating tax free municipal bonds would make a huge number of then unsalable, and no, it is not like considering to give a tax break on everything. Municipalities, Counties and States depend on bond issues to accomplish capital expenditures. Your take on this shows your complete ignorance of the subject. BTW, the small print you used is hard to read and I won't try again.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Aug 27, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > It would cost more money to purchase a library and reduce college athletics. At LSU, before the U was filled in we had 40,000 paying customers tromp through the stadium, enough to cover the cost of the sports and make a profit sufficient to fund university activities previously not possible. Adding 20,000 more paying customers (and now 101,000 with the new additions) along with the oil wells on university property and a functioning sugar mill as part of the chemical engineering program. It is short sighted to reduce profit making processes to buy activities that the profit making process pays for without state money and will continue making money for years to come. Go on line, check out how much the average ticket to an LSU v any SEC team. The profit from that alone is staggering, and that does not include the huge media fees to broadcast sports events.
> ...



That is THE dumbest statement ever. 

Request Rejected


There is reason why cities clamor for pro sports teams when they talk of moving


----------



## dcraelin (Aug 28, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



I thought we were done?..............Pro-sports stadiums are perhaps worth it if paid for with PRIVATE funds and without the use of tax-exempt bonds.....I doubt very much if eliminating tax-exemption would make the bonds unsalable..in fact it might make them more attractive for less wealthy local supporters of projects. BUT if less of them could be sold it would perhaps drive investment dollars into the private arena where they are arguably needed more........Stating I'm ignorant on the issue without showing why doesnt do anything for your side of the argument.


----------



## dcraelin (Aug 28, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



what request?

Yeah there IS a reason....they're leadership are idiots  and crooks.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Aug 28, 2014)

You are an ignorant ass, and it shines through even if one does not read your tiny print.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 4, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Here is a link to an article about a new book which talks about all the subsidies to stadiums, and how it is having a negative impact on city finances.

New book by Harvard prof details 10b in hidden stadium and arena subsidies Field of Schemes

There was also an article in today's WSJ asking if college is worth it. It refers to another book and the authors say college value has plummeted due to exclusive building of student centers and stadiums.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 5, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


Interesting that you use OPINIONS to support your case. I, on the other hand, have used the profit features of big college football even if those whipper wills are crying in the distance.  I know from absolute fact that when LSU enclosed their U the additional profit paid for the library after one year, so go stuff yourself. When and if (you can't) you can show sports do not create a profit for the universities let me know. I'm waiting!


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 5, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Opinions?...........that's all you have offered !!!!...........these are two books by college professors who have done studies of the economics of these things..........extensive study..........they offer a heck of a lot more than you have. And they presumably would be happy to acknowledge any good stadiums do as they earn their living at universities.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 6, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Wrong answer! College professors have opinions. Many would like to see college athletics go away because they believe it hurts academics, in spite of the fact the profits from the major sports put money into academics to teach more young people.

I looked at the actual profits big college sports programs put back to the school. Profits trump professor opinions every time, INCLUDING but not only the professors who wanted to build the new library in spite of the fact profits from football and basketball profits built the new library without the state putting up the money. The worse case scenarios are found in small programs which may better be eliminated. But big time school athletics are money makers.Are you really that ignorant? I suspect you don't even realize that even the lowest of the top 40 programs made $56.5 million. Here is a list of the top 40 in a study taken in 2008:

Colleges RK TEAM TICKETS STUDENTS AWAY_GAMES DONATIONS UNIVERSITY MEDIA_RIGHTS BRANDING TTLREVENUE
1 Crimson Tide $28,410,419 $0 $5,500 $29,860,400 $4,101,515 $8,825,964 $4,506,056 $123,769,841
2 Longhorns $44,691,119 $1,832,229 $318,000 $35,057,421 $0 $191,690 $16,639,171 $120,288,370
3 Buckeyes $38,608,138 $0 $3,750,189 $27,556,385 $0 $15,799,713 $5,015,349 $115,737,022
4 Gators $21,122,966 $2,578,306 $283,376 $42,630,821 $0 $3,907,635 $10,184,021 $106,607,895
5 Volunteers $29,403,335 $1,000,000 $250,000 $26,405,309 $0 $6,650,000 $4,154,643 $101,806,196
6 Wolverines $40,258,325 $0 $245,178 $15,138,000 $58,817 $2,025,000 $11,087,101 $99,027,105
7 Cowboys $17,528,662 $1,934,812 $755,765 $54,923,758 $2,109,205 $2,300,000 $1,718,005 $98,874,092
8 Badgers $26,936,910 $0 $330,000 $18,777,294 $3,356,669 $5,660,555 $2,705,018 $95,118,124
9 Aggies $30,144,815 $0 $305,500 $28,341,873 $3,264,000 $0 $9,224,632 $92,476,146
10 Nittany Lions* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -------------------------------------------$91,570,233
11 Tigers $21,991,623 $5,195,136 $106,289 $34,897,688 $0 $4,650,000 $6,079,271 $89,311,824
12 Bulldogs $18,716,327 $3,073,606 $1,966,874 $30,542,918 $0 $4,107,627 $8,315,014 $85,554,395
13 Tigers $28,519,228 $0 $1,498,466 $23,252,017 $0 $6,841,868 $2,345,902 $85,018,205
14 Fighting Irish* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $83,352,439
15 Jayhawks $17,630,120 $1,907,119 $135,500 $37,089,914 $1,976,277 $6,939,857 $3,107,370 $82,976,047
16 Hawkeyes $19,103,235 $1,487,795 $1,544,021 $21,404,864 $800,000 $1,500,000 $5,371,577 $81,515,865
17 Spartans $21,870,622 $0 $4,016,571 $19,501,782 $298,568 $829,600 $3,777,152 $81,390,686
18 Sooners $35,162,720 $150,000 $537,000 $13,255,316 $0 $209,125 $9,651,372 $77,098,008
19 Cardinal* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $76,661,466
20 Trojans* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $76,409,919
21 Cornhuskers $30,560,065 $0 $208,000 $16,410,663 $0 $3,908,483 $8,858,680 $75,492,884
22 Seminoles $13,393,780 $6,590,629 $2,132,221 $25,190,569 $0 $291,667 $12,284,211 $73,458,494
23 Wildcats $27,263,673 $568,996 $156,000 $11,980,590 $0 $7,512,601 $5,788,505 $71,727,243
24 Golden Gophers $20,361,691 $0 $225,240 $5,149,444 $4,241,212 $611,000 $6,025,620 $68,951,692
25 Blue Devils* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $67,820,335
26 Fighting Illini $14,296,494 $2,930,324 $1,304,500 $14,159,705 $1,272,372 $1,283,459 $4,582,018 $67,818,403
27 Gamecocks $20,821,727 $1,987,931 $310,000 $18,039,591 $0 $574,921 $2,983,978 $66,545,953
28 Razorbacks $28,645,905 $0 $19,309 $12,768,088 $1,518,452 $1,561,000 $2,279,843 $66,174,916
29 Tar Heels $17,861,212 $6,205,790 $1,825,440 $15,892,163 $0 $10,194,418 $2,653,080 $66,148,186
30 Bruins $22,402,565 $2,646,743 $3,587,023 $8,354,437 $210,000 $6,855,613 $7,744,834 $66,088,264
31 Hokies $17,486,754 $6,157,813 $236,231 $17,345,132 $367,642 $2,766,994 $1,453,744 $64,412,343
32 Cavaliers $14,895,325 $11,119,358 $1,556,651 $18,933,467 $0 $0 $3,561,647 $64,396,612
33 Golden Bears $15,481,732 $2,241,249 $2,063,356 $13,894,187 $5,209,697 $0 $6,373,873 $64,326,057
34 Boilermakers $17,596,957 $0 $1,091,710 $10,411,973 $0 $0 $5,058,518 $64,253,784
35 Eagles* -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $61,203,340
36 Huskies $22,556,942 $0 $1,609,393 $12,682,342 $1,849,894 $925,600 $6,589,490 $60,729,016
37 Terrapins $12,115,588 $8,601,302 $1,573,651 $12,612,828 $2,698,244 $0 $5,575,476 $59,624,100
38 Tigers $21,097,510 $1,501,216 $1,414,151 $14,109,137 $2,435,268 $777,500 $2,929,444 $59,180,652
39 Hoosiers $14,389,989 $0 $180,500 $9,848,448 $0 $0 $4,512,149 $57,155,333
40 Ducks $17,410,851 $0 $830,321 $18,347,181 $0 $2,674,268 $519,750 $56,623,901


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 7, 2014)

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > The rich have provided me with the opportunity to succeed in my field and to live fairly comfortably in my semi-retirement.
> ...


Of course, I get it. I spent most of my career working for people that had acquired some capitol and started a business that would benefit from someone with my expertise. My contributions made well off people wealthy and me comfortable, eventually resulting in me being able to open a small business of my own.
But DAMN!
Taxes, licenses, inspections and regulations cost more than my lease, and people want to rip me off.

Taxes! Geeze! Every time I sell a $4.00 shot of whiskey, The state gets $0.50 and the feds get a dime. An $8.00 shot costs a dollar just in taxes.

I can only buy liquor from the State of Alabama and beer from approved distributors. There are 3 in my area and if I want to sell Anheuser Busch products, I have to deal with only one. Miller products, another with a 3rd handling imports and crafts.
The distributors know they have me by the nuts. I pay about 10% more for my beer than you would from a grocery store and I buy it 40 or 50 cases at a time.

My people don't quit either. As a matter of fact, if one did now I could get someone in to take their place in an hour. *I have a list* of people wanting to work for me.

I used it last week when I finally found exactly where 20 or 30 beers and a bottle or more of rum were going each week. I used it once before when I caught an employee with drugs on site.

I did a full physical inventory every day for 2 weeks to be certain. That involves removing nearly every bottle of beer in a 10 foot long chest cooler, (roughly 1,000) counting and putting them back in, counting full cases in storage, and measuring every liquor bottle in the place. This all had to be completed before the staff arrived.

Some times I started it at 4 AM, once we had closed and cleaned up, sometimes 8 or 10 AM.

I've relaxed. I did Miller products today, mostly because I needed to get 5 cases cold for tonight and had to rotate new product to the bottom.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 7, 2014)

_Morality of Wealth Redistribution _

"There is widespread cognitive dissonance on the right when it comes to social welfare, a social safety net, and the redistribution of wealth generally. Self-described conservatives often articulate their first principles as if they oppose all welfare spending. But they don't actually think food stamps or welfare checks for impoverished families should be eliminated, which helps explain why redistributive social-welfare spending exists in red states as well as blue states, in red counties as well as blue counties, across Republican as well as Democratic majorities.


Conservatives talk tough. They're convinced the system has a lot of waste and fraud. The idea of freeloading hucksters on welfare outrages them to a degree far out of proportion to other government waste, sometimes for discreditable reasons. They're not all talk on welfare cuts, but their bark is worse than their bite.

This is most obvious when one examines the candidates behind whom the conservative movement rallies and what happens when they actually win elections. No one who reads Ayn Rand carefully could mistake the world she hoped to create for any program by any Republican president or congressional majority. The height of movement conservatism under Reagan did not even begin to undo the New Deal. President George W. Bush expanded social welfare in the healthcare system. Neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney, the conservative alternative to McCain in 2008, can be mistaken for ideological anti-statists."



Is Conservatism as We Know It Doomed - The Atlantic



For conservatives, therefore, the issue isn't so much one of 'morality,' but a lack of consistency and conviction.


----------



## Crystalclear (Sep 7, 2014)

There should be some welfare for a few people who really need it, but overall it is not moral to take money from a person and give it to another.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Ive already explained how those numbers are misleading.
As Mark Twain said there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
You sound very defensive when discussing this.....what is your interest....coach.....builder....financier?
I'll take the word of the professors and their extensive studies over yours.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


You have stated your opinion. I actually have no dog in this hunt. I am a 78 year old retiree (for 27 years now), but I attack stupidity when I see it.You have explained nothing. You are an ignorant ass. BTW, that is not defense, it is frustrated offense directed at an idiot.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 7, 2014)

In addition numb nut, very few if any college stadiums are built our of the City's/County's/State's money. Mostly they are built and improved by the income from the primary sports which use them.


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 7, 2014)

I know I'm motivated working overtime to pay the bills of able body lazy deadbeats and illegals. /sarcasm


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 7, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


Why all the name calling if you have no dog in this hunt? Maybe you're just getting senile. Whatever....Ill trust the professors over you.


----------



## kaz (Sep 7, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> Why all the name calling if you have no dog in this hunt? Maybe your just getting senile. Whatever....Ill trust the professors over you.



LOL, I always like people who criticize people for mental shortcomings, and do it with a demonstration you don't know the English language...


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> I know I'm motivated working overtime to pay the bills of able body lazy deadbeats and illegals. /sarcasm


You work?? I suppose it's possible. Ah: affirmative action of course.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



This is strange. DNSmith has put the numbers up. From your source Judith Grant Long has included the following: "Long’s analysis added costs such as those for land, infrastructure and lost tax revenue, while subtracting money that flows back to states or cities from revenue or rent payments."

So where the land has a commercial value but was owned by the state then that becomes added. The cost of infrastructure upgrades AROUND the stadiums are added even though they are only partially utilised by the stadium patrons and are used more by local traffic. Lost tax revenues...so getting nothing from nothing is better than getting nothing from something?? Is she an accountant? Actually she's an Assistant Prof and with that sort of cost adding then one would never build anything. Opportunity costs are NOT part of any Accounting Methods I've ever seen.

Your reliance on a SINGLE academic without critically looking at their methods is frankly not very adequate. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

C_Clayton

"For conservatives, therefore, the issue isn't so much one of 'morality,' but a lack of consistency and conviction."

Nonsense. Every Conservative I know is generous to a fault regarding the genuinely needy. The problem with liberals is that they want to maintain people in a lifestyle of dependency. It is a wrong desire. Dependency is soul destroying and results in pressures under which many families break down. There is NOTHING in any Conservative attitude that lacks conviction or consistency. By all means support the unemployed if needed UNTIL THEY FIND A JOB. Support the widows and orphans if they have no family to look after them. Assist those who are infirm and unable to provide for themselves. 

But for the fools bludging on the system...stuff them!! 

Greg


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _Morality of Wealth Redistribution _
> 
> "There is widespread cognitive dissonance on the right when it comes to social welfare, a social safety net, and the redistribution of wealth generally. Self-described conservatives often articulate their first principles as if they oppose all welfare spending. But they don't actually think food stamps or welfare checks for impoverished families should be eliminated, which helps explain why redistributive social-welfare spending exists in red states as well as blue states, in red counties as well as blue counties, across Republican as well as Democratic majorities.
> 
> ...


Neither Romney nor McCain were conservatives.  They were RINOs.  They were the Republican candidates selected by the media.  The New York Times endorsed both of them, if that tells you anything.

So your "analysis" is faulty based on that bogus premise alone.


----------



## dcraelin (Sep 8, 2014)

gtopa1 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



well I talked about 2 books by I believe 4 professors, not a "single academic".  Ive seen some of these infrastructure upgrades AROUND stadiums that would not be at all necessary if the stadium was not built. I'm not an Accountant but I believe there are different methods for different needs,i.e. taxes, business determinations. Within taxation there are different methods. Opportunity costs should be considered when trying to make these kind of decisions


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

dcraelin said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


Yet the most important issue is, HOW MUCH PROFIT OVER AND ABOVE THE COSTS, TO INCLUDE OPPORTUNITY COSTS.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 8, 2014)

Wiseacre said:


> What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> 
> Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence.   Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community.   This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
> 
> So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?


yes. We have a right to re evalutate the worth and wealth of those you say "earned it" at any time as it has been through out history. Now whether we want to wait till this has to be done in a violent revolution, as has been typical redistribution method, or through a more common sense approach of creating a maximum wage or percentage of total earnings of companies, governments etc... is yet to be seen. I still don't understand the lack of historical perspective and knowledge you all seem to have lost and therefore keep repeating. Our vanity keeps telling us that we should be working for ourselves and some of our lack of self worth tells us to work for the major benefit of a few that have chosen to be "A" type personalities and conquers of all around them.  This has always proven to be detrimental and totally destructive to our planet and species. Two steps forward and ten steps back. It's time we chose a better way. It's not like we have a choice. Sorry about that.


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 8, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> yes. We have a right to re evalutate the worth and wealth of those you say "earned it" at any time as it has been through out history. Now whether we want to wait till this has to be done in a violent revolution, as has been typical redistribution method, or through a more common sense approach of creating a maximum wage or percentage of total earnings of companies, governments etc... is yet to be seen. I still don't understand the lack of historical perspective and knowledge you all seem to have lost and therefore keep repeating. Our vanity keeps telling us that we should be working for ourselves and some of our lack of self worth tells us to work for the major benefit of a few that have chosen to be "A" type personalities and conquers of all around them.  This has always proven to be detrimental and totally destructive to our planet and species. Two steps forward and ten steps back. It's time we chose a better way. It's not like we have a choice. Sorry about that.



You have no right to my wealth or earnings that's some communist crap right there. Here's an idea deadbeats get a freaking job and mind your own business and stop reaching for my wallet. Or hop a ship to China go live your communist dream working for the communist collective.


----------



## kaz (Sep 8, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> yes. We have a right to re evalutate the worth and wealth of those you say "earned it" at any time as it has been through out history



Why don't you guys like the term "Marxist" again, Comrade?

So if you are saying someone did not earn it, you can go to court and prove what crime they committed.  Other than that, keep your greedy hands to yourself and out of other people's wallets.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't?   Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to.   And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
> ...


People earn money in different ways. The less wealthy toil at labor to feed their family. The most wealthy have worked to the point they need not work anymore. Wealth is then earned by investment. Most people earn what they get in one way or another and some do not produce sufficiently to earn their  pittance.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > Wiseacre said:
> ...


when you "earn" your money by investing in companies that devalue your fellow humans to slave labor conditions, inhumane living conditions etc... you have only earned a select spot in hell as your world dies and flashes before your eyes and your last cry is 'my God, what have I done!" and we can change our mind but it can be too late.


----------



## kaz (Sep 8, 2014)

when you "earn" your money by investing in companies that devalue your fellow humans to slave labor conditions, inhumane living conditions etc... you have only earned a select spot in hell as your world dies and flashes before your eyes and your last cry is 'my God, what have I done!" and we can change our mind but it can be too late.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Comrade, the bourgeoisie is oppressing the proletariat, who will arise and overthrow their masters!

Again, what's the problem with the word Marxist?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

gtopa1 said:


> C_Clayton
> 
> "For conservatives, therefore, the issue isn't so much one of 'morality,' but a lack of consistency and conviction."
> 
> ...


 All ten of them?


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 8, 2014)

The T said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.
> ...


Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...


That is bullshit. Even in the Bible "work to eat" is a good consideration.

The apostle Paul wrote in a letter to Christians:
“Brothers and sisters, keep away from Christians who are lazy. Such people do not live in the way that we taught you. We tell you to do this by the authority that the Lord Jesus Christ gives to us. You yourselves know very well that you should live as we did. We were not lazy when we were with you. We did not depend on any of you for our food without paying for it. No, we worked hard night and day. We earned what we needed. So we did not have to charge you anything at all. We did this, not because we do not have the right to expect such help. But we did it so as to be an example of how you should live. Because when we were with you, we gave you this rule: Whoever refuses to work should not eat."

"We say this because we hear that some among you are lazy. They talk about other people but do no work themselves. By the authority that we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge them to work quietly. They must earn the money to buy their own food. But you, brothers and sisters, must never tire of doing good things.”

No one works for slave wages in the US. Many do work for less than others, but that is usually because of their choices, ranging from education to choices of a criminal nature.

No matter what we do with wages, there will always be divisions of wealth, and there will always be the least wealthy. We could raise the minimum wage by double today, and by a short time, those with doubled wages will once again be the least wealthy, if for no other reason the 4 quintiles above them want to maintain their standard of living. Only people with a total lack of economic understanding make comments such as yours.

Should we strive to improve the lot our the least of our brethren? Of course, we are honor bound to do that. But in the overall scheme of things that kind of help is fleeting and we "must continue to do good work" as their is no rest for the performance of good.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton
> ...


If you believe that your ignorance knows no bounds. Sure, most of the people on welfare do really need the help, but I can count to 100 those in my small town alone who are capable of working and choose not to. That is what Greg is saying.

BTW Greg, nice to see you here.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...


 

If Greg needs an interpreter surely he could have picked a better one than you!  Who , but an idiot would  expect a sensible response to such a bad anecdote as that you posted above?

Assumptions don't count for much around here...try posting a few facts next time!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...


 
Is there a working stiff out there passing for a “conservative” happy with
this?


			
				DailyKos said:
			
		

> Senate Republicans once again showed their stellar values by filibustering a bill that would have cut
> corporate tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. That's right, Republicans are fighting to keep giving companies money to move jobs out of the United States:


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...


I have never seen or read about a bona fide situation as you describe, EXCEPT IN A SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST state in which everyone is poor but the commissar..





> . you have only earned a select spot in hell as your world dies and flashes before your eyes and your last cry is 'my God, what have I done!" and we can change our mind but it can be too late.


More bull shit. I have done more for  humanity than you have ever even dreamed about. I put my money and my self into it instead of spam a lot of words. Most people at the bottom of the chain are there because of their own choices, ranging from education to criminality. Human nature has put the squash on all of your dreams of self grandeur. I don't know why you are poor, but chances are, you did it to yourself.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


Who but an absolute idiot would make a post like you just did.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...


There is only one way to accomplish that. Eliminate all corporate taxes and tax those who earn money from those companies.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> when you "earn" your money by investing in companies that devalue your fellow humans to slave labor conditions, inhumane living conditions etc... you have only earned a select spot in hell as your world dies and flashes before your eyes and your last cry is 'my God, what have I done!" and we can change our mind but it can be too late.





> Yes, Comrade, the bourgeoisie is oppressing the proletariat, who will arise and overthrow their masters!
> Again, what's the problem with the word Marxist?


Kaz, they know that all forms of Marxism.....Socialism and Communism have never succeeded and in the process to survive even for a little while they require an autocratic/dictatorial government. The only people who gain any wealth in those states are the commissars.


----------



## kaz (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > > when you "earn" your money by investing in companies that devalue your fellow humans to slave labor conditions, inhumane living conditions etc... you have only earned a select spot in hell as your world dies and flashes before your eyes and your last cry is 'my God, what have I done!" and we can change our mind but it can be too late.
> ...



Agreed, can you fix your quote though?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


 
Hey, chuckles, get your friend "greg" to respond to my query about his anecdote and STFU. You have nothing meaningful to say...Butt out, or stay on topic...moron!


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



I grew up in a tourist mecca and I guarantee that the number of "dole bludgers" who funded their lifestyles with the public purse were legion. Add to their incomes by theft and drug dealing and you have a rotten little cess pit of blood suckers. "Not wanting to work" is NOT a reason to be getting taxpayer funds. 

"“We know there are individuals who will purposely withhold or fabricate information to collect government benefits they are not entitled to receive”. Those are the words of the Office of the Inspector General from their hearing on “combating disability waste, fraud, and abuse”.  The Senate conducted their own investigation which concluded that fully  one quarter of all disability insurance claims decisions were flawed, improperly addressing “insufficient, contradictory, and incomplete evidence, thus increasing the chances of rewarding nondisabled persons.” The study also determined the Social Security Administration (SSA) failed to establish that claimants were properly screened to certify that they satisfied metrics in the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) medical “Listing of Impairments” to meet eligibility requirements that would qualify them for the DI program. The Inspector General’s office identified billions in fraud. The Senate study implies many billions more in abuses. Much of the ongoing program cheating comes from those who continue to collect disability payments but are stealthily employed on the side. Not surprisingly, some of the SSDI wounds are self-inflicted. The SSA loses hundreds of millions continuing to pay those who were honest and notified that they were returning to work.  The agency is supposed to conduct CDR’s or Continuing Disability Reviews to check in and determine the status of the disabled. I know it surprises everyone that there is a huge backlog and SSA is severely understaffed in this area. Probably the biggest area of abuse is those who gingerly slip through the vetting net and shouldn’t be getting disability payments in the first place. The contrived complexity of the SSDI system has spawned a cottage industry of doctors and specialized legal teams to navigate the byzantine multi-tiered documentation process. While the integrity of most lawyers and doctors is beyond reproach there are a few bad apples that make their living gaming the system. Remember what your mother preached, “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”. This small nugget of wisdom pays off especially when applying for SSDI. Often applicants may be turned down on the first or second attempt to receive benefits. Many times it is only through a court hearing that cases get resolved. Per a study by D. Autor and M. Duggan as many as 40% of all disability awards comes through the appeals process. Some judges gain the reputation of never seeing a claim they didn’t like………never refusing anyone. They also found in one recent year the SSA paid out as much as half a billion dollars to claimants attorneys. It seems to me it is always in the best interest of the lawyer to take a case to trial; it’s a win for him/her no matter what the verdict."
Fraud And Disability Equal A Multibillion Dollar Black Hole For Taxpayers - Forbes


My comments are well founded. Yours are common among those who consider the "system" there to be rorted. 

Greg


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


1. I have no control and don't want any control over Greg. He is his own man. Can't say that for you. All you know how to do is insult and repeat Marxist rhetoric. I have said more, and on point, in every post I have made than you have in all your combined. So stick your head up your excremental orifice where you ears don't flap.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


When you quote the Daily Kos, the intelligent people on the board just laugh at you because they have nothing valid to say. The Guy who wrote that for the daily Kos likes to hear his sound bites but does not understand the reality.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post   "The researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."

Instead of believing bullcrap political rhetoric, why don't you read the studies made with empirical data? Or are you afraid you may learn something?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 8, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.



Sorry to burst you're bubble but Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid the biggest portion of corporate income taxes to Uncle Sam from 2007 to 2012, over $289 billion dollars. That's just the income tax, Exxon paid another $67 billion in sales and other taxes last year alone.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I always like to see the bullcrap Marxist rhetoric like you spew. It means you know nothing, and do nothing to improve your knowledge of reality. You and your Utopian ideas have always failed. I suspect it is your failure which drives you to want those who have some to give it to you.


 
What Marxist bullcrap have I spewed, phantom tracer? BTW, I am an American so, Marxism, communism,, conservatism and capitalism are all a part of my domestic experience. I am also a Christian so any leanings towards the first two ideologies spring from that. There is no  failing there! I am also an entrepreneur capitalist pig like you...only less so. Materialism is your god...not mine!


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The US has never experienced Marxism or Communism. Capitalism is the only economic system which creates prosperity for the country and the most of the people. Christianity does not support any political ideology. Christ does want us to take care of the least of our brethren, and we in the US only do a half ass job at that, and apparently the humans around them don't do much more on their own. But when Christ said that, HE WAS TALKING TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT CEASAR. Smart ass remark, "all ten of them" said a lot about you, and it reflected ignorance of reality.


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

DNSmith



> Utopian



They are the Elite who guide ALL THE REST to a new life of slavery to them. Stuff'em.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Christ was a Communist Marxist?? Are you flamin' nuts?? Here's your thirty pieces of silver so p!ss off!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



Oh gawd blimey: another of the "free sh!t army". Where do they crawl out from under their rocks??

Greg


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 8, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > Giving some industries tax breaks while not giving the same breaks to others distorts competition and interferes with the market. I am all for lower taxes, but picking and choosing who gets lower taxes is not good policy.
> ...


The proportion of corporate income taxes these guys pay is totally irrelevant to the extent of their tax breaks. Regardless of how many tax breaks they get, they will be making massive incomes that will thus lead to massive tax revenue. Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

In 2011, Exxon paid just 13% in corporate taxes. That amounts to a huge number of nominal dollars, but most other corporations pay far higher rates than that. I'm all for lower taxes, but granting some companies tax breaks and not others breeds corruption and is an example of government intervention in the free market.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


 


			
				dansmith35 link said:
			
		

> ]Offshoring" has become a major bogeyman in the 2012 presidential campaign. But is it actually harmful for American workers in the long run? A new paper from the London School of Economics Center for Economic Performance* suggests* not.


 

That’s strange! European off shoring never got much of a foothold , yet ; a London based company has produced a study of its “positive” effects on the US labor force. How charming! I would have expected this kind of rubbish to come from the Heritage Foundation think tank ;not socialist aliens!
But in admonishing the writer of the DailoyKos article I linked, I hope you did notice the degree of uncertainty alluded to in the last sentence of the above paragraph from *your* liked article! See the word "suggests?" Believe it or not that word has meaning!
I think this graph settles the question once and for all; please pay attention to the linear graph on the right…
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





You choirboys have been postulating BS as of late! I am not responsible for your education but I help when I can, heh heh heh!


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


I'd be fine with that. Or just getting rid of all the tax breaks an taxing all corporations equally.


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 8, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



They paid the most in taxes, its not rocket science the most as in way more than other companies. That doesn't sound like not paying their fair share. 

As for these so called "tax breaks" are you aware they will eventually have to pay those taxes, they are only deferred. Have you asked yourself why they are allowed to defer them? Are you aware how risky exploration is and that to encourage them to take that risk, to risk their money, the government lets them write off the asset expenditures quickly. The alternative is less exploration and higher energy prices.

Are you aware that congress has at times allowed other businesses, especially small businesses to do the exact same thing, purchase an asset and take the entire write off in the first year, also to encourage economic growth?

It sounds like you have spent too much time listening to moronic liberal politicians trying to foment hatred of oil companies and too little time gathering your own facts and making up your own mind.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

gtopa1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


The biggest problem with any form of socialism or communism is, they both require an autocratic/dictatorial government to take from the high achievers and give to the low achievers. That sounds like those who propose redistribution are saying.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


The proper proportion for corporate taxation is 0%. Collect the taxes from the income of those who are getting profits from the company. All corporate taxes do is add one more pretty little reason to leave our shores, and many have done it. The reason is tax incidence. Look it up if you don't understand it.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


 Where did I say that the US experienced Marxism or Communism? Perhaps you need to attend a reading comprehension class before we converse any further! My experience had to do with excercising my free will to learn about all economic systems of the world. I have never been afraid to point out  either the benefits  or  the problems with any socio economic system. Freedom allows  Americans to explore and discuss all ideologies including those made taboo by rich Americans.
 Your attempt to intimidate your opposition by calling them Marxists or Communists won't work on me!
Now , Christ appeared on earth wayyyy before Marx did. So, he actually preceded Marx in altruistic socialism.
Can you interpret these words of Jesus any other way?:



> Matthew 19:20-22King James Version (KJV)
> 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
> 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
> 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


 I take it you are not inline with the Republican notion that corporations are people.

If they are people they should pay taxes like PEOPLE!


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



Corporations don't generate income for themselves, sorry you don't understand that


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


 Then I guess they are NOT people, RIGHT? Do you understand THAT?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


  Sorry to interrupt your right wing circle jerk but I have a question: are you calling our European allies autocrats or dictators. I thought you were more informed than that... hmmm ok.... I see you aren't.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 8, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.


----------



## sameech (Sep 8, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> When you quote the Daily Kos, the intelligent people on the board just laugh at you because they have nothing valid to say. The Guy who wrote that for the daily Kos likes to hear his sound bites but does not understand the reality.Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills study says - The Washington Post   "The researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment."
> 
> Instead of believing bullcrap political rhetoric, why don't you read the studies made with empirical data? Or are you afraid you may learn something?



A US worker who does not have the skill set for one of those "more complex jobs" probably won't find much solace in his unemployment resulting in another job on the other side of the country.


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 8, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.



They paid nearly $300 billion in taxes and yet you persist in parroting the liberal oil company hate talking points. Liberals told you to hate them and you obeyed, its sad really.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 8, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


I don't try to intimidate anyone, so if you are intimidated by me it is your own conscience. I also did not say YOU said anything about America not experiencing Marxism or Communism. I said it. You should learn to read before you start accusing others. I say it like I see it. If you don't like what I say, please cursor on by.

I have degrees in economics and management and psychology to an EdS. I not only have studied the economic systems of the world, I have lived in a socialist country with socialist government. I am familiar with it 1st hand, and it isn't pretty. I could care less about rich Americans, but most have gotten there by making good choices. If you have observed the Fortune 400 list of the wealthy, it is changing all the time.

What works on you is your problem, not mine. Now to the bible:
The apostle Paul wrote in a letter to Christians:
“Brothers and sisters, keep away from Christians who are lazy. Such people do not live in the way that we taught you. We tell you to do this by the authority that the Lord Jesus Christ gives to us. You yourselves know very well that you should live as we did. We were not lazy when we were with you. We did not depend on any of you for our food without paying for it. No, we worked hard night and day. We earned what we needed. So we did not have to charge you anything at all. We did this, not because we do not have the right to expect such help. But we did it so as to be an example of how you should live. Because when we were with you, we gave you this rule: Whoever refuses to work should not eat.

We say this because we hear that some among you are lazy. They talk about other people but do no work themselves. By the authority that we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge them to work quietly. They must earn the money to buy their own food. But you, brothers and sisters, must never tire of doing good things."

BTW, the KJV of the Bible is the Catholic Bible translated into English at the behest of King James. Altruism is Christ like, and I follow that to the nth degree.


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 8, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > If I taxed a person making $1 million at 1% and a person making $10,000 at 30%, who would pay more in taxes? The answer is the man making $1 million. Paying more in taxes overall does not mean the fair share is being paid, nor does it negate tax breaks and incentives.
> ...


What matters is the percentage of income paid relative to other companies, not the total. This is an incredibly easy point to grasp. Would you support taxing a person making $10,000 at 30%, and a person making $1 million at 1%? Do you understand how that compares to companies that receive special tax privileges?

Exxon Mobile is won of the most profitable companies, meaning it should pay one of the highest corporate tax rates. Yet it pays an average of 17.6% in corporate taxes, higher than the average individual effective income tax rate.
Exxon Mobil Dodges the Tax Man Center for American Progress

What I am criticizing is the government picking and choosing corporations and industries to subsidize. That fosters an enormous amount of corruption and rent-seeking and runs contrary to basic free market principles. A corporate socialist is not a capitalist.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 9, 2014)

ShackledNation said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


And yet Corporate taxation never does what most people think it does. Based on studies of tax incidence much taxes levied on Corporations are actually paid by consumers. If the Capital is mobile, they can be passed on to labor. If supply is elastic consumers pay the tax. But the most important problem with Corporate taxation is, it gives the congress critters a means to pass on savings for campaign contributions. The taxes Corporations do pay should be eliminated and passed on to the owners of the shares for their profits off of the company making it a tax neutral situation.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 9, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I don't try to intimidate anyone, so if you are intimidated by me it is your own conscience. I also did not say YOU said anything about America not experiencing Marxism or Communism. I said it. You should learn to read before you start accusing others. I say it like I see it. If you don't like what I say, please cursor on by.


I told you I was not one to be intimidated by allusions to Marxism or Communism, that is passé , no need to mention it again. Further, my conscience is clear. My sins were more the result of self indulgence rather than the exploitative sort associated with unfeeling material capitalists such as yourself. Are you on your knees with head bowed in supplication to your God? You need to pray for the Lord to unlock your confused mind. You can’t even remember what you posted…let the readers judge!



			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I have degrees in economics and management and psychology to an EdS. I not only have studied the economic systems of the world, I have lived in a socialist country with socialist government. I am familiar with it 1st hand, and it isn't pretty. I could care less about rich Americans, but most have gotten there by making good choices. If you have observed the Fortune 400 list of the wealthy, it is changing all the time.


You may have all the degrees you say you have but that doesn’t mean you have any greater stature here because of it. The WEB is full of experts in the field of economics who don’t mind sharing some of that expertise. I can pull their data up at any time I feel ”experts” like you are drifting away from reality! The left has its share of economists too, ya know! And I am not so sure that most wealthy Americans got there because they made good choices. Many of them had it handed to them by their parents. They didn’t have to lift a finger to get it!



			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> What works on you is your problem, not mine. Now to the bible:
> The apostle Paul wrote in a letter to Christians:
> “Brothers and sisters, keep away from Christians who are lazy. Such people do not live in the way that we taught you. We tell you to do this by the authority that the Lord Jesus Christ gives to us. You yourselves know very well that you should live as we did. We were not lazy when we were with you. We did not depend on any of you for our food without paying for it. No, we worked hard night and day. We earned what we needed. So we did not have to charge you anything at all. We did this, not because we do not have the right to expect such help. But we did it so as to be an example of how you should live. Because when we were with you, we gave you this rule: Whoever refuses to work should not eat.
> 
> We say this because we hear that some among you are lazy. They talk about other people but do no work themselves. By the authority that we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, we urge them to work quietly. They must earn the money to buy their own food. But you, brothers and sisters, must never tire of doing good things"


Well, Paul wasn’t Jesus was he? Who are YOU to decide who is lazy or not. Had any divine revelations lately? Probably not. You just want to justify your materialistic mantra.
In Matthew 19:20-22 Jesus is talking to a man like you!


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 9, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 9, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


ya, more bullshit jumbo talk. you made yourself wealthy on your hard work? education? you've learned nothing and earned what's coming to you. karma has a way of waking up the "poor" to eat the rich as they've fed on the poor. get a history book stupid


----------



## gtopa1 (Sep 9, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...



You really are clueless. You do understand that wealth is CREATED by the combination of the factors of production...they are interdependent!! however, if you prefer to live in a gunyah out back of Bourke then go for it. I prefer civil society to a waste land.

Greg


----------



## ShackledNation (Sep 9, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...


I don't disagree. My point is critical of levying different rates of corporate taxes for companies making similar earnings because the government and the companies are in bed with each other.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Sep 9, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I bet more people are poor because of bad choices than are rich because of good choices. 

That's certainly true.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 10, 2014)

gtopa1 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


shit like you is created. you are so silly trying to justify delusional self importance and worth to this world or anybody in it.  You'/ve done more for mankind then anybody else? lol. you are really funny. your small in number , mind and kind, the self importance assholes of the world, have done more to destroy all that's good in this world then all combined. You create jobs right? lol. well, it doesn't appear that all the real worthy work is getting done. you really better get a grip on yourself and no not your privates again. o hail to greg the great job creater. lol. that's funny


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 10, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My conscience is clean.





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stature on the web is irrelevant. In your case it seems to be your ignorance. The point is MOST who didn't get there because of choices. There are always some struck by the golden finger of fate. If an economist is biased either left or right, he is not worth the time it takes to read his opinion. Look at his empirical data studies. If he has none read his opinion with a grain of salt. 





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope! He is not talking to anyone like me. And I don't judge WHO is lazy. God does. So much for your reading ability.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 10, 2014)

quote=dnsmith35]Stature on the web is irrelevant. [/quote]
Oh yeah, then why did you say this:


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I have degrees in economics and management and psychology to an EdS.


You can’t prove that so why say it? That statement does nothing for the credibility of your
“Stature on the web is irrelevant” remark! All it shows is that you want to project that image of yourself for impact whether it is true or not!


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I not only have studied the economic systems of the world, I have lived in a socialist country with socialist government. I am familiar with it 1st hand, and it isn't pretty.


Go anywhere in Europe and institutional socialism is to be found in about every country in one form or another. Having lived in Germany for three years I left feeling that their
social safety nets and socialized health care is highly regarded by most Germans. Socialism is not Soviet communism…


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> . The point is MOST who didn't get there because of choices. There are always some struck by the golden finger of fate.


You seem stuck on the notion that correct “choices” is the difference between being rich or less than rich. Is that a wild guess on your part or is it just a passing hunch? While I see the logic in what you say, it isn’t that cut and dry. You have to accept that everyone cannot be millionaires, regardless of choices made.


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> If an economist is biased either left or right, he is not worth the time it takes to read his opinion. Look at his empirical data studies. If he has none read his opinion with a grain of salt.


Keep talking, you are just about to out yourself as a fraud. Economists, inherently rely on numbers to back up their predictions, probabilities etc., etc., where are yours?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 10, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> quote=dnsmith35]Stature on the web is irrelevant.


Oh yeah, then why did you say this:


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I have degrees in economics and management and psychology to an EdS.





> You can’t prove that so why say it? That statement does nothing for the credibility of your
> “Stature on the web is irrelevant” remark! All it shows is that you want to project that image of yourself for impact whether it is true or not!


ROTFLMAO!





> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> . The point is MOST who didn't get there because of choices. There are always some struck by the golden finger of fate.





> You seem stuck on the notion that correct “choices” is the difference between being rich or less than rich. Is that a wild guess on your part or is it just a passing hunch? While I see the logic in what you say, it isn’t that cut and dry. You have to accept that everyone cannot be millionaires, regardless of choices made.


Obviously you didn't read for understanding. Look at my last quote for the clue you missed. Of course there are exceptions, but most successful people made good choices going back to behavior and education. Being stuck on good choices is much more pragmatic than the assumption that most people are unsuccessful because they have been screwed by the "system."


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> If an economist is biased either left or right, he is not worth the time it takes to read his opinion. Look at his empirical data studies. If he has none read his opinion with a grain of salt.


Keep talking, you are just about to out yourself as a fraud. Economists, inherently rely on numbers to back up their predictions, probabilities etc., etc., where are yours?[/QUOTE]And if they are worth reading, they don't have preconceived political biases and expectations. A good economist will use empirical data, determine what the statistics tell them about that data and come to a conclusion skewed by left wing or right wing leanings. If you don't believe that last sentence is etched in stone. See you around because you don't understand the situation well enough to discuss it. BTW, I am a liberal and I support all of the basic liberal tenets, but I don't accept rhetorical propaganda from either extreme.

BTW, I lived in Germany for 12 years, Spain for 3 years, Asia and SE Asia for 5 years. All of which one can buy a cup of coffee for a dollar or two.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 10, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> Look at my last quote for the clue you missed. Of course there are exceptions, but most successful people made good choices going back to behavior and education.


DO YOU mean THIS quote?


			
				dnsmith35 unclearly said:
			
		

> The point is MOST who didn't get there because of choices. There are always some struck by the golden finger of fate.


Your sentence structure is horrific here, I doubt if anyone reading could make any sense of it! If you are indeed an economist, please stick with numbers, English is not your bag!


			
				dnsmith35 said:
			
		

> I
> f you don't believe that last sentence is etched in stone. See you around because you don't understand the situation well enough to discuss it.


You’re damn right it’s etched in stone. Unless you remove it quickly that poor sentence structure will be there for all eternity as a testament to your abject stupidity! And that goes for your paragraph just above this one, too!


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 11, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


Jesus was a socialist. Paul was reformed smoker. If you follow. You can work as hard as  you like, but if you are working for yourself, it maybe good to gain the world, but you lose your souls. look around you. you have all sold your souls.  hells coming to claim them soon.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 11, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > ShackledNation said:
> ...


Actually no BS at all. I am not wealthy and what I have I did earn through work and my education helped me to do so. If there is ignorance being expended on this thread, it is you doing the crap throwing. The point is, we have lost numerous corporations who have migrated their headquarters to a lower tax country. All of those would have stayed in the US but for the excessive corporate taxation. We would keep many of them here if we taxed the money paid to the share holders such that it would be tax neutral.

Interesting is the way you earlier used the term "rent-seeking." Sounds like the failed attempts of Georgism; a system which has never succeeded without resorting to other taxes to keep the government going. Example: Hong Kong, which has several types of tax besides land valuation tax. In addition, as in Hong Kong, when LVT is used and the user pays the rent to the government, it all works exactly the same as fee-simple property tax on owned land. It is inheritable, it is exclusive to the current occupant, it can be sold just like private land, thus there is no practical difference between one system and the other since if property taxes not paid the land is forfeit.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 11, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


Paul was a staunch follower of Jesus after his awakening. BTW, all of the words written in the New Testament were actually authored by the followers of Jesus, not by his own hand.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 11, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...





> Jesus was a socialist. Paul was reformed smoker. If you follow. You can work as hard as  you like, but if you are working for yourself, it maybe good to gain the world, but you lose your souls. look around you. you have all sold your souls.  hells coming to claim them soon.


 Paul was a staunch follower of Jesus after his awakening. BTW, all of the words written in the New Testament were actually authored by the followers of Jesus, not by his own hand. And those words tell us to care for our brethren while recognizing that one must work to eat (within one's capacity)


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 11, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...


I take it all with a grain of salt because those that gave us what we have weren't Jesus or God. sorry to let you in on that..but that books been edited and picked and chosen by men. ordinary flawed men, no matter what your priest or pope tells you.


----------



## BluesLegend (Sep 11, 2014)

dnsmith35 said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > dnsmith35 said:
> ...



They prove it again and again libs would rather get no tax revenue at all from corporations vs lowering the tax rate to keep corporations in America and get at least something. Its insane but there it is. You see this in liberal states they will vamp tax a company right out of business or drive them to relocate to another state seemingly oblivious to having just killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Corporation after corporation bails to another country and the only response from liberals is to demonize them. That's not a strategy. In the liberals strange world corporations should willingly stay in the U.S. and be spat upon, demonized, and punished by higher taxes. Who the hell knows what's wrong with these liberals, brain damage maybe.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 11, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...


In addition, we DON'T HAVE TO LOSE THE REVENUE, if the levy is placed on the people who make the money from Corporate profit. Business relies on location, location, location; while government revenue is best concerned with tax incidence, tax incidence, tax incidence.

BTW, I am a liberal by virtue of what I believe we should do for the least of our brethren.


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> Jesus was a socialist



Really?  Can you show us some of his pro-government quotes?

You fundamentally don't understand charity.  What is done at the end of a gun barrel isn't charity, and Jesus never advocated it.  I'm calling you out as the useless liar that you are on this.  Back it up.


----------



## rdean (Sep 11, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> The way we do redistribute wealth is by passing laws that make it easier for some groups to accumulate wealth than others
> 
> The biggest redistribution of wealth has happened since 1980 as the middle class has lost wealth to the rich



What you said.


----------



## kaz (Sep 11, 2014)

rdean said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > This country does not redistribute wealth by confiscating it from some and giving it to others. We have a legal tax structure detailing what you contribute to society.
> ...



So RW, government does not redistribute wealth.  But it does redistribute wealth, from the poor to the wealthy.  you want to make government that is stealing with the poor and giving to the rich stronger because you are opposed to what they are doing and you want more of it.

That sounds right to rdean who stuck his hand down your pants to express his approval.

One question RW.  So how do you explain if you're being robbed why you are living on checks of other people's money sent to you by government?


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 11, 2014)

There are some people who are legitimately concerned about the wealth of the .01%. Others are just jealous. But what few of them recognize is, no matter how much wealth the most wealthy accumulated, it doesn't detract a single penny from the less wealthy. Wealth is not a zero sum game many would like us believe.

One of the primary purpose of government is to protect private property, even the property of the wealthy.


----------



## Mindful (Sep 12, 2014)

I can't work out who's saying what.


----------



## Abishai100 (Sep 12, 2014)

*Corporate Incentives*

Here's a note:

It seems that our modern world of globalization not only brings up concerns about wealth redistribution, but it also raises questions about the effect of potential unhappiness created by wealth iniquities.

Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market.  After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?

Many ideas about balancing finances have been circulated --- debt forgiveness programs, 5-year repayment plans, national unions, etc.

A new idea that has been receiving some attention is renewable energy research which has the potential of creating profitable and beneficial alliances between OPEC and Western oil companies such as BP (British Petroleum).

If companies create allianes, governments could follow suit, which in turn can benefit companies socially.  We may see wealth redistribution as a simple effect of trade, perhaps even assuaging fears that Wall Street is creating imposing werewolves.


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

Abishai100 said:


> Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market.  After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?



So seriously, you think the Islamic fundamentalists who do most of the terrorism in the world are actually doing it because they are socialists and not for religion?

It's a fascinating theory, but how can you possibly support that?


----------



## Otium (Sep 12, 2014)

manifold said:


> > What is your opinion about the morality of wealth redistribution?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that it's both moral and necessary, in moderation.




OK. That was easy.

Now, what defines " moderation" is where the hard part comes in. E.g., mid 1990s welfare reform was deemed " cruel and heartless" by critics ( including Hillary) of the law, the results of the ROLLBACK of redistribution were mostly very positive in improving the lots and lives of many hitherto welfare recipients.

Stipulating that a certain level is both moral and necessary, is easy.   GOP define success by fewer dependents on the government and the Dems count success by its expansion.  Simple. And there's the political fight.

This is why we need a less biased and more responsible press. When the GOP are demagogued as " heartless"  for daring to reform entitlements,  or to  cut the _rate of growth_ of discretionary spending, and waging a "war" on women for asking that some women pay for their own birth control ?

There is NO hope for a meaningful compromise that makes sense .


----------



## Otium (Sep 12, 2014)

fanaticism and 





kaz said:


> Abishai100 said:
> 
> 
> > Many people feel that terrorism is a direct effect of the anger towards disproportionate distribution of resources in our supposedly globalizing free market.  After all, why did the Taliban attack the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001?
> ...




Good Lord.   Economics was NOT in play as the hijackers screamed Allahu Akbar!  It is about a perversion of a age old reading of the Koran.   It is fanatical, warped, ignorant  religious  fanaticism and  zealotry.

Economic protesters would kidnap and extort money, not destroy and kill knowing that said attack will produce a military response and kill thousands of their fellow fanatics.


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

Otium said:


> fanaticism and
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you sure about that?  Maybe Allahu Akbar means feed the people you greedy wealthy capitalists


----------



## Otium (Sep 12, 2014)

What?

It means ( +/-)  "God is Great!"


And the act committed was ostensibly in his name .

If you think the meaning was to feed the poor? I'd think the House of Saud and any and all of the oil rich_ kleptocracies_ of the region would attract suicide bombings before we would.

The opulence of the Kingdoms , based on stolen oil resources and wealth, amid the poverty of the area, is so obvious that it begs the larger question of why the Arab despots don't spend more of their wealth on FOOD from the greedy multinational, "greedy , wealthy  capitalist"  food companies operating in Europe and the USA.

No, the USA is the Great Satan as the ultimate proxy/symbol  of secularism and  individual freedom. It's not complicated. It's on HBO and Showtime.


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

Otium said:


> What?
> 
> It means ( +/-)  "God is Great!"
> 
> ...



You need to read the conversation better.  First of all, you're arguing with he wrong guy, I am not the one who claimed most terrorism is over economics, I actually disagreed with that.  Second of all, you're not detecting overt sarcasm.  You may want to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 12, 2014)

Otium said:


> What?
> 
> It means ( +/-)  "God is Great!"
> 
> ...



How did these "greedy" corporations steal anything?  They have to purchase everything they consume.


----------



## Otium (Sep 12, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Otium said:
> 
> 
> > What?
> ...





I was responding in sarcasm to the quoted post. Re read in context.  ( And I apparently made the same mistake!)


----------



## Otium (Sep 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> Otium said:
> 
> 
> > fanaticism and
> ...





Please help me understand how I was supposed to note the "sarcasm" here. I am a newbie here. How was this not your post?  Thanks.


Morality of Wealth Redistribution Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

Otium said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Otium said:
> ...


You seem not to be following the conversation at all.  For example, you keep arguing with me about a point that I agree with.  I already told you that.  Someone argued most terrorism is over economic disparity.  I said that is ridiculous, particularly since most terrorism is committed by Muslim extremists.  

So, given that I think it's stupid that someone argued that most terrorism is over economics, when I said "Maybe Allahu Akbar means feed the people you greedy wealthy capitalists," how could you not recognize that as sarcasm?


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was a socialist
> ...


what are you talking about? Jesus wasn't a socialist? he cared for the least. he was given crap for wearing too much perfume to his death because of it's cost and how many it could have helped or fed. what do you call such a person? a capitalist?


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was a socialist
> ...


everything we do today is done at the point of a gun barrel, a sword or pen point. look around you heathen.


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...



Do you understand that socialism is government?  Where did Jesus advocate government do those things?


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...


I see, so opposition to using force makes one a heathen?  LOL, what a douche.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> dnsmith35 said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...


why if corporations have been raking in major profits for the last 40 or more years as all others wages go down, should anybody worry about corporations paying more taxs? not too mention the billionaires investing don't pay taxes on their winfalls because they hide the earnings, lobby congress so they don't have to or just launder the money. you corporate lovers are killing yourselves.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


who said socialism is government? government is supposed to be us the people you bozo. i think you are confused and misguided. stop watching so much fox news. propaganda


----------



## Alex. (Sep 12, 2014)

I work my ass off I do not want share with lazy food for nothings, although I am happy to help out those in need.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


i was kidn't a bit with the heathen. doosh. lol. Everything's done by force today. you just are more afraid of guns. don't know why that is. liberty or death is americas motto. i thought. who said anything about charity? we wouldn't need charity if we weren't so damned selfish and power hungry.


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

Alex. said:


> I work my ass off I do not want share with lazy food for nothings, although I am happy to help out those in need.


if you didn't corner the market on food, as it was in the begginning, we wouldn't have to work our asses off so a few, like you can sit in the sun doing nothing. It's so easy to work your ass off, but I was made to lie down green pastures and beside cool waters. you were meant to work your ass off, aparently.  surf


----------



## haissem123 (Sep 12, 2014)

i work my ass off. that's funny. as if you should be proud of that. then when you win others work for you. which is it? work so hard that you can eventually buy others to work so hard for you? lol. you rubes kill me


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> why if corporations have been raking in major profits for the last 40 or more years as all others wages go down, should anybody worry about corporations paying more taxs? not too mention the billionaires investing don't pay taxes on their winfalls because they hide the earnings, lobby congress so they don't have to or just launder the money. you corporate lovers are killing yourselves.



Our corporate taxes are first of all double taxes on the owners, so any tax is too high.

But as you're selfish, I'll explain it to you in terms you should care about.  Our taxes are harming our corporations because the US tax rates are too high and complicated and we tax things like overseas profits other countries don't.  Which is why they are leaving one after the other.  Who you going to work for, Homey, when you keep destroying our own industry?


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who said socialism is government?  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Socialism is centralized economic planning?  How stupid are you?

And what is your theory exactly as to why conservative Fox is programming me to be a libertarian?  Is there some sick shit they are up to with that?

What a moron.

Speaking of Jesus, where did he advocate confiscating money with force for "charity?"  Where did he advocate you can do charity with other people's money?

You know nothing about Christianity.


----------



## kaz (Sep 12, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > haissem123 said:
> ...




Well, since you advocate taking people's money by force, you can start making it a better place by starting with your own self-righteous yet overtly greedy behavior.


----------



## Alex. (Sep 12, 2014)

haissem123 said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > I work my ass off I do not want share with lazy food for nothings, although I am happy to help out those in need.
> ...




You sound very foolish.


----------



## crisismangement (Sep 14, 2014)

In an attempt to protect the integrity of this board, and provide a forum for open and honest political debate, I am officially surrendering use of the many sock puppets I've used solely for my own entertainment.


----------



## dnsmith35 (Sep 14, 2014)

In an attempt to protect the integrity of this board, and provide a forum for open and honest political debate, I am officially surrendering use of the many sock puppets I've used solely for my own entertainment.


----------

