[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP? The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data. If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.

Is there a relevant point in here someplace?

 

[bripat9643]

Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.

When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?

No, I like our country. That's why I don't whine about it. I like our Constitution, I like democracy, I like our President.

Of course you whine about it. You and your ilk whined constantly when Bush was in office. You still whine that that we need to spend more money and green energy boondoggles. You whine about "deniers." You whine about so-called "gay rights." You whine about granting Amnesty to illegal aliens. You whine about the imaginary war on women. If you're so happy, then why don't you shut your fucking yap? Otherwise go to Cuba where the government is exactly the way you want it to be.

You're the whiner. You and Fox. If you don't like us, find someplace else better suited to your liking.

No balls?

What you call "whining" is what the Constitution calls "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances." So basically you're just saying that you despise the First Amendment.

Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.

Now get the hell out of this country since you hate it so much.

 

[PMZ]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats. Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.

This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.

I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?

If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.

''Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.''

As good an example of the fundamental lies of conservatism as I've seen.

That the purpose of taxes is to punish.

That it's even possible to punish those with way more wealth than they can ever spend, financially.

That there's a magic relationship between having wealth and producing.

That middle class workers who create everyone's wealth, largely support the Republican Party.

Think of how effective propaganda must be to sell to anyone, much less a significant minority, those lies.

 

[bripat9643]

PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives? And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO. We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid. Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for. The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing. That is the ultimate in Fascism.

 

[PMZ]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats. Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.

This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.

I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?

If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.

Also a great example of fomenting class warfare. The Africa like tribal warfare that is the antithesis of America.

 

[kaz]

It's an inaccurate insult.

The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word. And that's my question. Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

What would that evidence be?

That would be easy since you'd be unable to show any statement which contradicts what I said that you're a Marxist.

My question isn't why you're a Marxist, it's why the word bothers you since you are a Marxist.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

ROFL! The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical. Were you born yesterday?

 

[kaz]

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.

Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.

 

[kaz]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP? The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data. If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.

Is there a relevant point in here someplace?

Just that it blew your statement out of the water.

 

[kaz]

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems. Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt. That's a national problem.

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.

What we, the people, can hold them accountable for is, actually, what is in their self interests. Grow. Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.

There are an infinite number of ways to do that, and frankly, if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not. Not the current set anyway.

It's the responsibility of we, the people, to manage our democracy.

Let's do it.

And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest. You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.

Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy. What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast. Which is what you want, except the word.

 

[bripat9643]

It's an inaccurate insult.

The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word. And that's my question. Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

No he wouldn't, bonehead. You would have to prove that it was false. Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm. You know less about the law than you know about climate.

 

[PMZ]

When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?

No, I like our country. That's why I don't whine about it. I like our Constitution, I like democracy, I like our President.

Of course you whine about it. You and your ilk whined constantly when Bush was in office. You still whine that that we need to spend more money and green energy boondoggles. You whine about "deniers." You whine about so-called "gay rights." You whine about granting Amnesty to illegal aliens. You whine about the imaginary war on women. If you're so happy, then why don't you shut your fucking yap? Otherwise go to Cuba where the government is exactly the way you want it to be.

You're the whiner. You and Fox. If you don't like us, find someplace else better suited to your liking.

No balls?

What you call "whining" is what the Constitution calls "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances." So basically you're just saying that you despise the First Amendment.

Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.

Now get the hell out of this country since you hate it so much.

Almost 100% of 100% of your posts boils down to, here's what you want to be true. And almost 0% is. Offering zero evidence or even rationale that there's any reality at all in your posts doesn't seem to bother you a bit. Clearly the reason why the Party had so little trouble recruiting your unquestioning loyalty.

The perfect minion.

 

[PMZ]

The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word. And that's my question. Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

What would that evidence be?

That would be easy since you'd be unable to show any statement which contradicts what I said that you're a Marxist.

My question isn't why you're a Marxist, it's why the word bothers you since you are a Marxist.

In court the burden of proof would be on you.

 

[bripat9643]

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems. Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt. That's a national problem.

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.

What we, the people, can hold them accountable for is, actually, what is in their self interests. Grow. Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.

There are an infinite number of ways to do that, and frankly, if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not. Not the current set anyway.

It's the responsibility of we, the people, to manage our democracy.

Let's do it.

Since you think you have the authority to be hold citizens "accountable," what are the welfare parasites accountable for? What are sleazy Democrat politicians accountable for? Is Obama "accountable" for any campaign promises he's made?

 

[bripat9643]

Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis. You reward me and I'll reward you.

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.

CEO's get fired all the time, dolt. The CEO of several of the corporations I have worked for were given the boot.

 

[kaz]

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

What would that evidence be?

That would be easy since you'd be unable to show any statement which contradicts what I said that you're a Marxist.

My question isn't why you're a Marxist, it's why the word bothers you since you are a Marxist.

In court the burden of proof would be on you.

You know nothing of our legal system. If you are suing me, the burden of proof is on you. And you'd have to show three things.

1) What I said was false

2) I either lied or at least had a reckless disregard for the truth

3) It caused you material harm

You could show none of those. It's true, we both know it's true, and it doesn't harm you it just contradicts your agenda to turn us into a Communist State.

 

[kaz]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.

CEO's get fired all the time, dolt. The CEO of several of the corporations I have worked for were given the boot.

He doesn't understand how public businesses are structured. He wanted the shareholders to storm the CEO's office with torches and pitchforks and lynch them. Anything else doesn't count.

 

[PMZ]

The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word. And that's my question. Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?

If I sued you for slander, you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.

No he wouldn't, bonehead. You would have to prove that it was false. Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm. You know less about the law than you know about climate.

I agree with the financial harm part. The other part is, once again, only what you want to be true.

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning. It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt. This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.

Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats. Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.

This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.

I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?

If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.

''Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.''

As good an example of the fundamental lies of conservatism as I've seen.

That the purpose of taxes is to punish.

Your messiah even admitted as much when he said he favors raising the capital gains tax even though it would bring in less revenue. He said raising revenue wasn't the main issue, "fairness" was. In other words, it's about punishing those who are doing better.

That it's even possible to punish those with way more wealth than they can ever spend, financially.

So forcing someone to pay their money to the government isn't punishment? Then what is the point of government fines? What is the point of the fine for not buying insurance in the Obamacare legislation?

That there's a magic relationship between having wealth and producing.

There's nothing "magic" about it. That's where wealth comes from, the goods and services you produce. That is, unless you are a parasite sucking off the taxpayers.

That middle class workers who create everyone's wealth, largely support the Republican Party.

It's a documented fact, turd.

Think of how effective propaganda must be to sell to anyone, much less a significant minority, those lies.

Truth is always more effective than propaganda.

 

[PMZ]

And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs? What about other executives? What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?

I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems. Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt. That's a national problem.

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.

What we, the people, can hold them accountable for is, actually, what is in their self interests. Grow. Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.

There are an infinite number of ways to do that, and frankly, if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not. Not the current set anyway.

It's the responsibility of we, the people, to manage our democracy.

Let's do it.

Since you think you have the authority to be hold citizens "accountable," what are the welfare parasites accountable for? What are sleazy Democrat politicians accountable for? Is Obama "accountable" for any campaign promises he's made?

All politicians are accountable to we, the people. We hire and fire them.

Obama was judged by we, the people, to be more worthy than any of the alternatives released from the Republican clown car.

People on welfare are accountable, as we all are, to comply with our laws. If they are not they are criminals subject to the legally prescribed consequences.