the only remaining argument against capatalism

[Dad2three]

Fine, I'll limit it to that: Today patriots will need to defend the U.S. from a great threat to our nation and the founders who created it, by following the admonish of Mr B. Franklin who reminded us we have a Republic if we can keep it.

Since our Republican form of government is currently owned by the power elite, the Capitalists, we need to protect capitalism and our nation from the Plutocrats, those capitalist who will never stop in their quest to establish a lassiez fair form of non governance, where rules and regulations no longer exist.

I see no reason to assume that the Founding Fathers would have preferred for the State to control the entirety of the wealth any more than Plutocrats.
That in itself would be a rather lassiez fair of looking at things.

I don't suggest that regulation or rules don't serve their place ... Just that where they may limit options, they certainly do not produce better conditions for everyone.
No regulation or rule will ever make you as wealthy as the top 1% ... Nor will it give you what it takes for them to remain at the top.

So then ... Your argument is reduced to measures set forth to limit wealth ... Not produce it.

.

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." Smith 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."

Stephen Budiansky s Liberal Curmudgeon Blog Adam Smith Thomas Jefferson and other fellow travelers

The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster

The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. Adam Smith

Death, Taxes, and the American Founders

But in the case of the estate tax, the founders struggled with the same issues that we struggle with today. And many of them—though not all—believed that taxing and reducing large estates was a good idea, for it benefited society as a whole


...So, as with other political issues—even independence itself—Revolutionary-era Americans held a range of views on how much property people should be allowed to pass on to their children. But one thing is certain: They hoped to prevent the emergence of a small group of people with perpetual wealth and thus perpetual privilege -


History News Network Death Taxes and the American Founders

 

[Dad2three]

Like I said, you believe in myths and fairy tales and you can't see as a society how it works. I'm shocked. No really I am

Still won't answer the question, Corky?

Society works for people who work it.

You just don't want to work it do you?

You have failed to address the question

We are not talking about one person being able to work harder and earn more. We are talking about 100 million workers who need to earn more

Show me the economic data showing there are 100 million better paying jobs out there

Better paying than what?

And why does making more money necessarily mean having someone else provide a job for you?

There are countless ways to make extra money that do not involve working for someone else you know.

Your post is wrong. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have been engaging in crony capitalism for decades. Capitalism is the only system that gives the poor and non privileged a chance to become a billionaire. Well, it's the only system that doesn't require the mass murder of competitors and others in your way that is.

You are advocating for a system that results in misery for the poor, and for a very small ruling elite to live very large on their suffering. Why do you advocate for that? Are you simply so stupid that you believe it will turn out different than every other time it has been tried? Or are you so ignorant you simply don't know the history.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would you righties EVER Have Bubba?

Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

 

[MisterBeale]

I said the bottom 47% pay zero income taxes.

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

That's ^^^ very stupid!

Banks pay 0.01% interest on savings, and today charge fees for what once were free services. Lenders charge fees and points for everything, buy a house and you will soon pay for the ink used in the pen they loan you to sign the docs.

The cost of living, in terms of basics and necessities has skyrocketed, and much of the higher cost is passed on to all consumers, a rise in the price of gas .50 cents a gallon hurts more the less you make, as true for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, public transportation, technology, education - about anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more.

It would behoove you to try to grok WHY banks are able to pay such low interest rates on savings.

Here's a little clue: take a look at the Federal Reserve, Big Banks, and Big Government CABAL.

Yet you can't point to one society without a federal reserve or uses the libertarian BS anymore on the Banksters. Weird right?

Anymore? That's true. But once upon a time? How about the US?

Unenumerated Bank notes from the free banking era

 

[Dad2three]

Oh you mean the zero tax bite on income taxes?

Weird

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Nearly every U.S. state taxes the poor more than the rich, according to a 2009 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes



Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor people with lower incomes pay a higher state and local income tax rate? LOL!
Poor people with lower spending pay a higher state and local sales tax rate? LOL!
Poor people with smaller houses a pay higher local property tax rate? LOL!
Liberal lies strike again!

Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Nearly every U.S. state taxes the poor more than the rich, according to a 2009 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes



Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Thanks for the response; but it's a complete non sequitur.

The Rich are paying a higher share of the money collected by the government. That is not pushing the burden down.

You lose.

OH it wasn't YOU saying tis:

"Poor people with lower incomes pay a higher state and local income tax rate? LOL!
Poor people with lower spending pay a higher state and local sales tax rate? LOL!
Poor people with smaller houses a pay higher local property tax rate? LOL!
Liberal lies strike again!"

lol


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Nearly every U.S. state taxes the poor more than the rich, according to a 2009 report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Overall, the poorest 20 percent of households paid an average 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2007, while the top 1 percent on average paid just 5.2 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes



Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

You mean AS the "job creators" have taken a historic SHARE of the pie AS their tax burden has plummeted on that share?

Sorry Bubba, your lies don't cut it. You lose

Well, you finally got something right. It wasn't me who said what you are quoting.

That said, you lose for misquoting me in the first place.

Your inability to follow the thread, then to jump in and not follow the posts in order, isn't my fault Bubba

You lose, again

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, that 45% of the pie of federal revenues, and you are using old numbers. It's about 43%, mostly younger workers who will pay income taxes in the future, the elderly who already paid or the disabled. But let me guess, the bottom HAL;F of US who get 11% of the pie aren't paying enough? lol

There is no pie.

You can get as much as you want because no one is stopping you from getting it

except you.

That's ^^^ very stupid!

Banks pay 0.01% interest on savings, and today charge fees for what once were free services. Lenders charge fees and points for everything, buy a house and you will soon pay for the ink used in the pen they loan you to sign the docs.

The cost of living, in terms of basics and necessities has skyrocketed, and much of the higher cost is passed on to all consumers, a rise in the price of gas .50 cents a gallon hurts more the less you make, as true for the cost of food, clothing, shelter, public transportation, technology, education - about anything one can think of hurts those who have less than those who have more.

It would behoove you to try to grok WHY banks are able to pay such low interest rates on savings.

Here's a little clue: take a look at the Federal Reserve, Big Banks, and Big Government CABAL.

Yet you can't point to one society without a federal reserve or uses the libertarian BS anymore on the Banksters. Weird right?

Anymore? That's true. But once upon a time? How about the US?

Unenumerated Bank notes from the free banking era

When the US had a 2008 size crash every 5 years on average, somewhere in the US? Weird you don't understand the boom and bust cycles of unregulated (or as Harding/Coolidge/Ronnie and Dubya's history shows, poorly regulated) capitalism? I'm shocked

 

[westwall]

The best and greatest argument against the burgoise society otherwise known as capitalism is the moral argument. I just keep mentioning wealth gap or how it is unfair and people are so outraged that they rush to shut it down. Despite the fact that real communist societies have their own wealth gap between between favoured bureaucrats, chosen individuals and everyone else I just keep telling people how unjust the capatalism system is. I really don't care if nothing else has ever worked in the history of the world or how every other unfree economy was riddled with corruption and had appointed aristocracies to rule over the peasants. I just keep beating this drum to death just so I can shut it down.

And yet, with a capitalistic society there IS a middle class. With the world you wish to create there is a serf class, and a ruling elite. No middle class. You really think that's better? what makes you think that you'll be part of the ruling class?

Nonsense. Capitalism has a very small middle class naturally, look to most of Latin America and Asia to see that. The US middle class was (largely) built by Gov't policy!

Yes, you are a moron as this post has just made very clear. The Middle Class in the US is very large. Government policy helped in some cases but harmed in others. Like all extremists you ignore the bad to further your argument. You're just as bad as every con you rail against.

 

[bendog]

With respect, Boedicca, that argument is packed with logical fallacies of invalid comparisons and failure to analyze the entire picture.
While your post doesn't reference income tax exclusively, I think that's what you referred to. Rates have gone down throughout the quintiles, so the only reason the total % paid by the top quintile rose so much is because they are MAKING so much more than they used to.
Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Further, if you factored in local property and sales tax, I don't think the "rich" are paying more, because other taxes are regressive, and the "rich" don't spend as much a % of their income.

 

[rightwinger]

You just don't get it do you?

Where did I say give more to anyone?

Anyone is completely free to earn as much as he can.

And if someone earns more than me I have absolutely no right to any of it.

No one is stopping you or anyone else from making more money. You just don't have the gumption to do what it takes so you whine about other people's wealth instead.

It's pathetic.

Pathetic is you don't think or that Gov't policy doesn't influence wealth or the distribution of it, good or bad

Ayn Rand wrote fiction Bubba

I never read Atlas Shrugged.

So tell me how is the government keeping you from making more money?

Never having read it doesn't mean you don't believe in the myth of perpetuates


You mean how does Gov't keep the "job creators" in luxury and the GOP fighting for them at every turn?

It might be fiction, but it's laced with truth born of experience. She was born and raised in the Soviet Union. You know not of what you speak.

Sure, a hypothetical anarchic-syndicalist commune is a Utopian ideal, and we all know Utopian ideals don't work. But, just like A Brave New World, 1984, or Animal Farm, there are lessons there to be learned. Apparently, you have yet to learn them.

Damn....never realized what a crazy old bitch Ayn Rand was

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I support politicians who want to seal the border.
You support Obama who wants to import more illegals.
Why do you hate poor Americans?

Obama doesn't want to let millions more illegals come here?
Obama didn't sign an executive amnesty? LOL!
Maybe Obamacare can help you with that brain damage?

Like I said, without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have?

"Obama doesn't want to let millions more illegals come here?"

There is the LIE


"Obama didn't sign an executive amnesty? "

Thee is the distortion

What else do you morons have Bubba?

Obama is doing nothing to prevent millions of illegals from coming here and reducing wages for Americans.
He hates poor Americans and if you support him, you do too.

Oh yes, another meme from the right, and a half-truth at that. Who hires the "millions of illegals"? Obama, the Federal Government? No, not them, it's small businesses, individually owned businesses and some industries. Most likely those who vote for Republicans, since it's all about profit and not ever about, "Country First!".

No, not them, it's small businesses, individually owned businesses and some industries. Most likely those who vote for Republicans, since it's all about profit and not ever about, "Country First!".

That's good to know. So Obama could stick it to Republican business owners while raising the wages of low-skilled Americans, just by sealing the border and kicking out the illegals.
After more than 6 years, he has failed to do that.
Is it because he's stupid, or does he just hate poor Americans?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Either lazy, or just too stupid to get up the ladder.

It's easy to find moronic prols to flip a burger, but hard work to find people with the ability to run a massive, multinational business.

That's why the best get paid, and the rest flip their burgers.

Yeah, BECAUSE the US had a more equal society before trickle down, must not have had many "hard workers" 1945-1980 right?


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

Profits Just Hit Another All-Time High, Wages Just Hit Another All-Time Low

1) Corporate profit margins just hit another all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from "too much regulation" and "too many taxes." Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren't. What they're suffering from is a myopic obsession with short-term profits at the expense of long-term value creation).





2) Wages as a percent of the economy just hit another all-time low. Why are corporate profits so high? One reason is that companies are paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those "wages" are represent spending power for consumers. And consumer spending is "revenue" for other companies. So the profit obsession is actually starving the rest of the economy of revenue growth.




In short, our current obsessed-with-profits philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.
Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider

In short, our current obsessed-with-profits philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.

Let's import millions of serfs from other countries, to compete with our own.
Easier than sealing the border.

Yeah, it's the borders that's been the problem *shaking head*

Weird how the "job creators" could stop that IF they wanted to right? Didn't the GOP own Congress most of the past 20 years Buba?

Ronald Reagan calls for an open border with Mexico, 1980

Yeah, it's the borders that's been the problem *shaking head*

Letting in millions of low skilled illegals doesn't help low skilled Americans.
Obama wants to let in even more. Weird.

'Obama wants to let in even more" Evidence is missing, I understand more persons are being turned around at border crossings than ever before.

'Obama wants to let in even more" Evidence is missing,

Did his idea to let illegal children stay encourage fewer to come, or more?
Does his "executive amnesty" encourage fewer to come, or more?
Does his failure to build a fence encourage fewer to come, or more?
Does his failure to deport illegals we take into custody encourage fewer to come, or more?

 

[Skylar]

The best and greatest argument against the burgoise society otherwise known as capitalism is the moral argument. I just keep mentioning wealth gap or how it is unfair and people are so outraged that they rush to shut it down. Despite the fact that real communist societies have their own wealth gap between between favoured bureaucrats, chosen individuals and everyone else I just keep telling people how unjust the capatalism system is. I really don't care if nothing else has ever worked in the history of the world or how every other unfree economy was riddled with corruption and had appointed aristocracies to rule over the peasants. I just keep beating this drum to death just so I can shut it down.

What is a 'real' communist society?

And what version of capitalism are you referring to? Pure lassie faire capitalism with virtually no regulation? Anarcho-capitalism? Regulated capitalism? If the latter, to what extent is the regulation?

Capitalism in its purest form has all sorts of problems that make it unsuitable for long term use. Its wildly unstable. Its pure hell on workers and the environment. Its wildly exploitative. It trends toward monopoly. In our own history, purely capitalism was practiced when slavery and indentured servitude was practiced. That's the degree of exploitation that pure capitalism thrives on.

Regulated capitalism is less of each. Our brand has all sorts of capitalism has problems that will have to be addressed sooner or later. Or we'll likely descend into oligarchy in all but name. Some have argued, and surprisingly well, that we may already have.

 

[MisterBeale]

He believes in whining that the government needs more money from the rich.
Then he arranges things to give the government none of his money.
Typical whiny liberal hypocrit.

Yet unlike the greedy cons, he doesn't try to use loopholes AND advocates for higher taxes on the "job creators". Weird

He advocates for higher taxes, and does everything he can in order to minimize his own taxes. He wants higher estate taxes but plans to escape estate taxes.
Typical liberal hypocrite.

Yeah, calling for a higher INCOME tax burden is horribly greedy right? No he doesn't plan on "escaping estate taxes", he plans on giving it to charity to better effect the world, not just the US!

Hypocrite? Better check what it means Bubba

These rich mother fuckers don't give to "charities." They give to tax-exempt charitable, "foundations." If you are a political scientist and you research and study the social engineering aspect of these foundations, you would understand that these foundations have a more profound affect on the nation and the world than even the various governments of the earth. Ever hear of the older foundations like the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie Foundation or the foundation with close ties to the CIA and the Obama administration, the FORD FOUNDATION? Charity my ass. He's busy throwing in with other global elites. Probably giving to the Gates foundation I imagine. That one is all about eugenics and depopulation. Creepy, evil MOFO that Buffet is.

More right wing BS. Shocking

Well then, I guess all of congress was into "conspiracy theorizing" back in 1954. Because this is when it was researched and revealed that this is how the system was operating. Read the congressional report if you don't like the truth. Krugman works for one of the CFR bought and owned papers, of course he is going to parrot derogatory partisan bullshit.
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA Christopher Dodd Free Download Streaming Internet Archive



It isn't about "left" or "right" politics, it is about being sovereign free men and women on the land our forefathers conceived a new ideal, that being freedom. Not a new form of oppression.

What I don't think you understand is that, what you want, is already being achieved. All this "wealth gap?" Is the wealth gap between the rulers of a bureaucratic communist State, and the people. EVERYONE will be equally poor, except the leaders. The more the wealth gap grows, the more they WILL socialize health care, education, car production, distribution, etc. the more they achieve their goals.

THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. The final move will just be to change the name of what we have, it is all just cosmetics. In the end, the same folks will still be running the show.

Will it make you happy if we just do away with the labels now? Or do you want to make small communities having farmers markets illegal? Is that how much you disdain the free market?

THESE ARE THE FACTS. FACE 'EM BUDDY.

 

[Dad2three]

The best and greatest argument against the burgoise society otherwise known as capitalism is the moral argument. I just keep mentioning wealth gap or how it is unfair and people are so outraged that they rush to shut it down. Despite the fact that real communist societies have their own wealth gap between between favoured bureaucrats, chosen individuals and everyone else I just keep telling people how unjust the capatalism system is. I really don't care if nothing else has ever worked in the history of the world or how every other unfree economy was riddled with corruption and had appointed aristocracies to rule over the peasants. I just keep beating this drum to death just so I can shut it down.

And yet, with a capitalistic society there IS a middle class. With the world you wish to create there is a serf class, and a ruling elite. No middle class. You really think that's better? what makes you think that you'll be part of the ruling class?

Nonsense. Capitalism has a very small middle class naturally, look to most of Latin America and Asia to see that. The US middle class was (largely) built by Gov't policy!

Yes, you are a moron as this post has just made very clear. The Middle Class in the US is very large. Government policy helped in some cases but harmed in others. Like all extremists you ignore the bad to further your argument. You're just as bad as every con you rail against.

Got it, you'll stick with ad hominems versus addressing ANY points with fact based assertions. Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

With respect, Boedicca, that argument is packed with logical fallacies of invalid comparisons and failure to analyze the entire picture.
While your post doesn't reference income tax exclusively, I think that's what you referred to. Rates have gone down throughout the quintiles, so the only reason the total % paid by the top quintile rose so much is because they are MAKING so much more than they used to.
Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Further, if you factored in local property and sales tax, I don't think the "rich" are paying more, because other taxes are regressive, and the "rich" don't spend as much a % of their income.

And in 2007, the last year I saw where the top 1% has 23% of ALL US income, their total tax burden on ALL forms of federal taxation on that income was about 40% less than the same tax burden on the 23% share of the pie in 1980

 

[Dad2three]

Yet unlike the greedy cons, he doesn't try to use loopholes AND advocates for higher taxes on the "job creators". Weird

He advocates for higher taxes, and does everything he can in order to minimize his own taxes. He wants higher estate taxes but plans to escape estate taxes.
Typical liberal hypocrite.

Yeah, calling for a higher INCOME tax burden is horribly greedy right? No he doesn't plan on "escaping estate taxes", he plans on giving it to charity to better effect the world, not just the US!

Hypocrite? Better check what it means Bubba

These rich mother fuckers don't give to "charities." They give to tax-exempt charitable, "foundations." If you are a political scientist and you research and study the social engineering aspect of these foundations, you would understand that these foundations have a more profound affect on the nation and the world than even the various governments of the earth. Ever hear of the older foundations like the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie Foundation or the foundation with close ties to the CIA and the Obama administration, the FORD FOUNDATION? Charity my ass. He's busy throwing in with other global elites. Probably giving to the Gates foundation I imagine. That one is all about eugenics and depopulation. Creepy, evil MOFO that Buffet is.

More right wing BS. Shocking

Well then, I guess all of congress was into "conspiracy theorizing" back in 1954. Because this is when it was researched and revealed that this is how the system was operating. Read the congressional report if you don't like the truth. Krugman works for one of the CFR bought and owned papers, of course he is going to parrot derogatory partisan bullshit.
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA Christopher Dodd Free Download Streaming Internet Archive



It isn't about "left" or "right" politics, it is about being sovereign free men and women on the land our forefathers conceived a new ideal, that being freedom. Not a new form of oppression.

What I don't think you understand is that, what you want, is already being achieved. All this "wealth gap?" Is the wealth gap between the rulers of a bureaucratic communist State, and the people. EVERYONE will be equally poor, except the leaders. The more the wealth gap grows, the more they WILL socialize health care, education, car production, distribution, etc. the more they achieve their goals.

THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. The final move will just be to change the name of what we have, it is all just cosmetics. In the end, the same folks will still be running the show.

Will it make you happy if we just do away with the labels now? Or do you want to make small communities having farmers markets illegal? Is that how much you disdain the free market?

THESE ARE THE FACTS. FACE 'EM BUDDY.

More right wing BS. Shocking


United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations

This article is about the 1952-1954 investigation into non-profits. For the 80s and 90s report on the People's Republic of China's covert operations within the United States, see Cox Report.


The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954. The committee was originally created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The committee investigated the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations (non-profit organizations) to see if they were being used to support communism



The committee's two Democrats, Wayne L. Hays and Gracie Pfost, refused to sign the final report. The Hays-Pfost minority report charged that the foundations "have been indicted and convicted under procedures which can only be characterized as barbaric." The minority accused Chairman Reece and the committee staff of a "deep-seated antagonism toward foundations" which might "well be characterized as pathological."

According to the minority report: The majority and committee staff were guilty of "an evil disregard of fundamental American guarantees." Anti-foundation witnesses were heard in full and their testimony published but the hearings were concluded as soon as pro-foundation witnesses began to present their case.


Reece said the foundations would be permitted to file statements and thereby get "a fair opportunity to put their best foot forward at the same time that they escaped the embarrassment of cross-examination." The committee staff, however, apparently "deliberately ignored" the statements in preparing the report. Judging by a pro-foundation witness allowed to testify, Dr. Pendleton Herring, Social Science Research Council president whose testimony was cut off "midway," public testimony "was far from embarrassing" and was "the one certain way that [those] accused by the staff...could destroy the deadly inferences, innuendoes and charges." By contrast, the committee gave 3 days to the testimony of San Francisco attorney Aaron Sargent, whose political and economic thinking could be judged by his charge that the U.S. "income tax was part of a plot by Fabian Socialists operating from England to pave the way for socialism in this country."



lol


United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

fkking ruight wing morons!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Yet unlike the greedy cons, he doesn't try to use loopholes AND advocates for higher taxes on the "job creators". Weird

He advocates for higher taxes, and does everything he can in order to minimize his own taxes. He wants higher estate taxes but plans to escape estate taxes.
Typical liberal hypocrite.

Yeah, calling for a higher INCOME tax burden is horribly greedy right? No he doesn't plan on "escaping estate taxes", he plans on giving it to charity to better effect the world, not just the US!

Hypocrite? Better check what it means Bubba

These rich mother fuckers don't give to "charities." They give to tax-exempt charitable, "foundations." If you are a political scientist and you research and study the social engineering aspect of these foundations, you would understand that these foundations have a more profound affect on the nation and the world than even the various governments of the earth. Ever hear of the older foundations like the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie Foundation or the foundation with close ties to the CIA and the Obama administration, the FORD FOUNDATION? Charity my ass. He's busy throwing in with other global elites. Probably giving to the Gates foundation I imagine. That one is all about eugenics and depopulation. Creepy, evil MOFO that Buffet is.

More right wing BS. Shocking

Well then, I guess all of congress was into "conspiracy theorizing" back in 1954. Because this is when it was researched and revealed that this is how the system was operating. Read the congressional report if you don't like the truth. Krugman works for one of the CFR bought and owned papers, of course he is going to parrot derogatory partisan bullshit.
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA
Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA Christopher Dodd Free Download Streaming Internet Archive



It isn't about "left" or "right" politics, it is about being sovereign free men and women on the land our forefathers conceived a new ideal, that being freedom. Not a new form of oppression.

What I don't think you understand is that, what you want, is already being achieved. All this "wealth gap?" Is the wealth gap between the rulers of a bureaucratic communist State, and the people. EVERYONE will be equally poor, except the leaders. The more the wealth gap grows, the more they WILL socialize health care, education, car production, distribution, etc. the more they achieve their goals.

THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT. The final move will just be to change the name of what we have, it is all just cosmetics. In the end, the same folks will still be running the show.

Will it make you happy if we just do away with the labels now? Or do you want to make small communities having farmers markets illegal? Is that how much you disdain the free market?

THESE ARE THE FACTS. FACE 'EM BUDDY.

Criticisms


Opponents criticized the Committee as "investigating free thought"



The Republican Angier Goodwin added a note below his signature: "In signing this report, I do so with strong reservations and dissent from many of its findings and conclusions and with the understanding that I may file a supplementary statement to follow". In his supplementary statement he disagreed with the main points of the Reece Report and agreed with the diametrically opposite conclusions of the Cox Commitee of which he had been a member

The committee's two Democrats, Wayne L. Hays and Gracie Pfost, refused to sign the final report. The Hays-Pfost minority report charged that the foundations "have been indicted and convicted under procedures which can only be characterized as barbaric." The minority accused Chairman Reece and the committee staff of a "deep-seated antagonism toward foundations" which might "well be characterized as pathological."

According to the minority report: The majority and committee staff were guilty of "an evil disregard of fundamental American guarantees." Anti-foundation witnesses were heard in full and their testimony published but the hearings were concluded as soon as pro-foundation witnesses began to present their case. Reece said the foundations would be permitted to file statements and thereby get "a fair opportunity to put their best foot forward at the same time that they escaped the embarrassment of cross-examination."


The committee staff, however, apparently "deliberately ignored" the statements in preparing the report. Judging by a pro-foundation witness allowed to testify, Dr. Pendleton Herring, Social Science Research Council president whose testimony was cut off "midway," public testimony "was far from embarrassing" and was "the one certain way that [those] accused by the staff...could destroy the deadly inferences, innuendoes and charges." By contrast, the committee gave 3 days to the testimony of San Francisco attorney Aaron Sargent, whose political and economic thinking could be judged by his charge that the U.S. "income tax was part of a plot by Fabian Socialists operating from England to pave the way for socialism in this country." lol,


New York attorney Rene A. Wormser, who headed the staff, had proposed that "the inquiry be made without public hearings" or "the testimony of interested persons" and instead that the staff "devote its time to independent study and inquiry."


WINGNUTTER

United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

The best and greatest argument against the burgoise society otherwise known as capitalism is the moral argument. I just keep mentioning wealth gap or how it is unfair and people are so outraged that they rush to shut it down. Despite the fact that real communist societies have their own wealth gap between between favoured bureaucrats, chosen individuals and everyone else I just keep telling people how unjust the capatalism system is. I really don't care if nothing else has ever worked in the history of the world or how every other unfree economy was riddled with corruption and had appointed aristocracies to rule over the peasants. I just keep beating this drum to death just so I can shut it down.

And yet, with a capitalistic society there IS a middle class. With the world you wish to create there is a serf class, and a ruling elite. No middle class. You really think that's better? what makes you think that you'll be part of the ruling class?

Nonsense. Capitalism has a very small middle class naturally, look to most of Latin America and Asia to see that. The US middle class was (largely) built by Gov't policy!

Yes, you are a moron as this post has just made very clear. The Middle Class in the US is very large. Government policy helped in some cases but harmed in others. Like all extremists you ignore the bad to further your argument. You're just as bad as every con you rail against.

Got it, you'll stick with ad hominems versus addressing ANY points with fact based assertions. Shocking

You're the master of ad-homs nit wit. 90% of the BS you spew is ad-hom. Address real facts, use real history or simply shut the hell up. You're nothing more than a propagandist when you do that, and to be honest I rarely see you engage in anything more than bomb throwing. You ignore real facts, and real history all the time.

 

[Dad2three]

The best and greatest argument against the burgoise society otherwise known as capitalism is the moral argument. I just keep mentioning wealth gap or how it is unfair and people are so outraged that they rush to shut it down. Despite the fact that real communist societies have their own wealth gap between between favoured bureaucrats, chosen individuals and everyone else I just keep telling people how unjust the capatalism system is. I really don't care if nothing else has ever worked in the history of the world or how every other unfree economy was riddled with corruption and had appointed aristocracies to rule over the peasants. I just keep beating this drum to death just so I can shut it down.

And yet, with a capitalistic society there IS a middle class. With the world you wish to create there is a serf class, and a ruling elite. No middle class. You really think that's better? what makes you think that you'll be part of the ruling class?

Nonsense. Capitalism has a very small middle class naturally, look to most of Latin America and Asia to see that. The US middle class was (largely) built by Gov't policy!

Yes, you are a moron as this post has just made very clear. The Middle Class in the US is very large. Government policy helped in some cases but harmed in others. Like all extremists you ignore the bad to further your argument. You're just as bad as every con you rail against.

Got it, you'll stick with ad hominems versus addressing ANY points with fact based assertions. Shocking

You're the master of ad-homs nit wit. 90% of the BS you spew is ad-hom. Address real facts, use real history or simply shut the hell up. You're nothing more than a propagandist when you do that, and to be honest I rarely see you engage in anything more than bomb throwing. You ignore real facts, and real history all the time.

Got it, you'll bring your usual BS ad hominems. Shocking

Perhaps you MIGHT bring SOME facts sometimes Bubba? IF left up to conservatives, the US would look like any other 3rd world nation, you know the policies the US followed to create the worlds largest middle class WERE mainly progressive right?


Following conservative economic theory creates 3rd world nations, a few very wealthy and LOTS of poor working 60+ hour weeks!

Poverty is a normal condition of human beings, It's been a common characteristic ever since the emergence of civilizations, DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE capitalism allows for creation of the vast majority of the middle class, with most of that thanks to PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICY!

 

[westwall]

And yet, with a capitalistic society there IS a middle class. With the world you wish to create there is a serf class, and a ruling elite. No middle class. You really think that's better? what makes you think that you'll be part of the ruling class?

Nonsense. Capitalism has a very small middle class naturally, look to most of Latin America and Asia to see that. The US middle class was (largely) built by Gov't policy!

Yes, you are a moron as this post has just made very clear. The Middle Class in the US is very large. Government policy helped in some cases but harmed in others. Like all extremists you ignore the bad to further your argument. You're just as bad as every con you rail against.

Got it, you'll stick with ad hominems versus addressing ANY points with fact based assertions. Shocking

You're the master of ad-homs nit wit. 90% of the BS you spew is ad-hom. Address real facts, use real history or simply shut the hell up. You're nothing more than a propagandist when you do that, and to be honest I rarely see you engage in anything more than bomb throwing. You ignore real facts, and real history all the time.

Got it, you'll bring your usual BS ad hominems. Shocking

Perhaps you MIGHT bring SOME facts sometimes Bubba? IF left up to conservatives, the US would look like any other 3rd world nation, you know the policies the US followed to create the worlds largest middle class WERE mainly progressive right?


Following conservative economic theory creates 3rd world nations, a few very wealthy and LOTS of poor working 60+ hour weeks!

Poverty is a normal condition of human beings, It's been a common characteristic ever since the emergence of civilizations, DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE capitalism allows for creation of the vast majority of the middle class, with most of that thanks to PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICY!


View attachment 39268

Socialism brings mass murder and serfdom. Progressives were falling all over themselves to show how much they loved Fascism. We get it. You love fascism too. Fortunately most of the people here are smarter than you and have rejected that particular type of government.

And progressives loved the bolsheviks too! It was OK for them to murder a few hundred thousand because they were doing the work that needed to be done!

You're nothing but another in a long line of assholes who wish to rule the world by killing all of those who disagree with you.

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

"Progressives generally greeted the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia with great enthusiasm, embracing it as a worthy effort to create a socialist utopia. In the 1920s and 1930s, a host of credulous progressive journalists traveled to Russia to chronicle the the revolution's afterglow, so as to inform Americans about the historic significance of what was transpiring there. According to author Jonah Goldberg: “Most liberals saw the Bolsheviks as a popular and progressive movement.... Nearly the entire liberal elite, including much of FDR's Brain Trust, made the pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment.”

One key contributor to this pro-Bolshevik genre was the communist journalist John Reed, author of Ten Days that Shook the World. Reed dismissed concerns about the Red Terror and the mass murder of non-Bolshevists by praising the killers of “this treacherous gang.” Said Reed: “To the wall with them! I say I have learned one mighty expressive word: ‘raztrellyat’ [sic] (execute by shooting).”

"Similarly, the intellectual E.A. Ross excused the Bolsheviks' violent campaign of terror on the theory that they did not kill all that many people. (Estimates of the number of deaths by execution range from 50,000 to 200,000.)"


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1222

 

[Dad2three]

Nonsense. Capitalism has a very small middle class naturally, look to most of Latin America and Asia to see that. The US middle class was (largely) built by Gov't policy!

Yes, you are a moron as this post has just made very clear. The Middle Class in the US is very large. Government policy helped in some cases but harmed in others. Like all extremists you ignore the bad to further your argument. You're just as bad as every con you rail against.

Got it, you'll stick with ad hominems versus addressing ANY points with fact based assertions. Shocking

You're the master of ad-homs nit wit. 90% of the BS you spew is ad-hom. Address real facts, use real history or simply shut the hell up. You're nothing more than a propagandist when you do that, and to be honest I rarely see you engage in anything more than bomb throwing. You ignore real facts, and real history all the time.

Got it, you'll bring your usual BS ad hominems. Shocking

Perhaps you MIGHT bring SOME facts sometimes Bubba? IF left up to conservatives, the US would look like any other 3rd world nation, you know the policies the US followed to create the worlds largest middle class WERE mainly progressive right?


Following conservative economic theory creates 3rd world nations, a few very wealthy and LOTS of poor working 60+ hour weeks!

Poverty is a normal condition of human beings, It's been a common characteristic ever since the emergence of civilizations, DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE capitalism allows for creation of the vast majority of the middle class, with most of that thanks to PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICY!


View attachment 39268

Socialism brings mass murder and serfdom. Progressives were falling all over themselves to show how much they loved Fascism. We get it. You love fascism too. Fortunately most of the people here are smarter than you and have rejected that particular type of government.

And progressives loved the bolsheviks too! It was OK for them to murder a few hundred thousand because they were doing the work that needed to be done!

You're nothing but another in a long line of assholes who wish to rule the world by killing all of those who disagree with you.

• H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
• The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
• The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
• Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
• McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
• After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
• Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
• NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
• FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
• New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
• Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

"Progressives generally greeted the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia with great enthusiasm, embracing it as a worthy effort to create a socialist utopia. In the 1920s and 1930s, a host of credulous progressive journalists traveled to Russia to chronicle the the revolution's afterglow, so as to inform Americans about the historic significance of what was transpiring there. According to author Jonah Goldberg: “Most liberals saw the Bolsheviks as a popular and progressive movement.... Nearly the entire liberal elite, including much of FDR's Brain Trust, made the pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment.”

One key contributor to this pro-Bolshevik genre was the communist journalist John Reed, author of Ten Days that Shook the World. Reed dismissed concerns about the Red Terror and the mass murder of non-Bolshevists by praising the killers of “this treacherous gang.” Said Reed: “To the wall with them! I say I have learned one mighty expressive word: ‘raztrellyat’ [sic] (execute by shooting).”

"Similarly, the intellectual E.A. Ross excused the Bolsheviks' violent campaign of terror on the theory that they did not kill all that many people. (Estimates of the number of deaths by execution range from 50,000 to 200,000.)"


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1222

Got it, without false premises, distortions and lies, what would the right EVER have Bubba?

Conservative Ideology requires either ignorance, stupidity, denial or
psychopathology….& maybe all of the above


Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!