"You didn't get there on your own"

[Quantum Windbag]

In a nutshell, you are a social Darwinist who believes that all people need is punishment to 'see the light'. You spew the exact same philosophy that was the foundation of fascism, communism and every atrocity that has ever occurred. The most dangerous and vile part of your social Darwinism is not your Monica Lewinsky worship of a hierarchy, it your dismissal and disdain for the common men and women on this planet.

You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.

Tell me something. Why is Social Darwinism a bad thing? Didn't Darwinism result in life as we know it today? Is your belief and support of evolution merely a political stance to give you an argument against Christians who believe in God? Wouldn't that make you a hack?

Just an FYI here, Hofstadter's epic work of alternate history applied the term Social Darwinism to a person who supported labor unions and opposed corporations.You might want to do a little research before you throw around terms you do not understand.

 

[Mac1958]

It boggles the fucking mind that anyone would say something like that.

See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues. When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:

1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts? How are they handling them?
6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes? Fox and MSNBC? Is it that simple?
7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?

If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.

.

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement
Of course there has been some improvement. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back. Maybe half a step. Improvement as in other recessions? Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.

You think what we have now is a mild recovery
Where did I say that, precisely? This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.

You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally. And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See, this is an example of what really fascinates me about partisan ideologues. When I see something as completely absurd as this, a few questions immediately start running through what remains of my little mind:

1. Surely this person realizes this isn't true, right?
2. Wait, maybe they do, how could that be?
3. What was the thought process that completely blocked out all evidence and allowed them to come to this conclusion?
4. Is this person having any contrary thoughts about this statement?
5. If so, what are they doing with those thoughts? How are they handling them?
6. What outside influences have contributed to such thought processes? Fox and MSNBC? Is it that simple?
7. Do they approach other areas of life like this, where they just ignore contrary evidence and run with stuff?
8. Does thinking in a vacuum, in an intellectual cocoon, become habit, second nature?
9. Or maybe, is this just a game they like to play, really having little to do with the topic at hand, just fun?

If course, while these questions and others are bouncing around in my little brain, I'm sitting there in front of the computer, transfixed, trying not to drool.

.

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement
Of course there has been some improvement. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back. Maybe half a step. Improvement as in other recessions? Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.

You think what we have now is a mild recovery
Where did I say that, precisely? This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.

You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally. And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.

.

Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.

 

[Mac1958]

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement, yet you think what we have now is a mild recovery, and you think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement
Of course there has been some improvement. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back. Maybe half a step. Improvement as in other recessions? Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.

You think what we have now is a mild recovery
Where did I say that, precisely? This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.

You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally. And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.

.

Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.

Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".

Good grief.

"Playing", indeed. I'm not good at partisan games. Another waste of my time.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

In a nutshell, you are a social Darwinist who believes that all people need is punishment to 'see the light'. You spew the exact same philosophy that was the foundation of fascism, communism and every atrocity that has ever occurred. The most dangerous and vile part of your social Darwinism is not your Monica Lewinsky worship of a hierarchy, it your dismissal and disdain for the common men and women on this planet.

You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.

Tell me something. Why is Social Darwinism a bad thing? Didn't Darwinism result in life as we know it today? Is your belief and support of evolution merely a political stance to give you an argument against Christians who believe in God? Wouldn't that make you a hack?

Just an FYI here, Hofstadter's epic work of alternate history applied the term Social Darwinism to a person who supported labor unions and opposed corporations.You might want to do a little research before you throw around terms you do not understand.

Alternate history? It is so refreshing to hear a right winger describe what they spew.

REAL history...

THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM

The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless" exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.

The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.

As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior" was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest" would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress."

With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.

--------------------------------

Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al: The Role of Darwinian Evolution in Their Lives


--------------------------------

Darwin’s critical influence on the ruthless extremes of capitalism

--------------------------------

Republican Economics As Social Darwinism

--------------------------------


The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism

--------------------------------

Darwinism: Then and Now

 

[edthecynic]

Ohhhhh... I get it now. Pardon me for mistaking you for a critical thinker. I thought you were interested in a discussion of political issues, but what's readily apparent is that you're simply envious that other people have more money than you do.
I mean, we both KNOW that capital gains are taxed several times before any checks are cut, so what else could it be?



You know, the REAL difference between leftists and capitalists is that leftists believe there's only so much pie to go around. They think everyone should be guaranteed a little sliver, even though when that sliver is finally passed down by government it arrives as crumbs.
Capitalists, on the other hand... know that we can always make more pie.

Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.

We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.

The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.

Insult? Observation? Take it as you will. By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.

Investment capital IS taxed twice. It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in. What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days. Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with "42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000". The elderly, in particularly are "two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five".

The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.

And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.

The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)

Capital gains tax $45
Corporate income tax $132
Individual income tax $794
Social Security taxes $713
Total revenues $1,782
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The strange thing is that there has been no real improvement
Of course there has been some improvement. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month; the intrabank lending system was broken, now it's just lousy; we were literally on the cliff's edge, now we're a step or two back. Maybe half a step. Improvement as in other recessions? Nope, but this is not even close to the same global economic environment.

You think what we have now is a mild recovery
Where did I say that, precisely? This economy is dead in the water right now, very little velocity of money, and no doubt an unemployment rate higher than the announced number.

You think what we had 3 years ago is a full blown disaster.
Indeed, the likes of which we have never seen, building over the course of almost three decades, and building globally. And for the GOP to think that this was/is just another recession, that we could have just popped back in a year or two or five like nothing had happened, indicates either (a) an abject lack of knowledge and understanding of what has happened, or, far more likely, (b) a willingness to lie for political gain.

.

Some improvement is not the opposite of no real improvement, thanks for playing.

Ah, so the discussion hinges on your personal interpretation of "some" vs. "real".

Good grief.

"Playing", indeed. I'm not good at partisan games. Another waste of my time.

.

Question, did you not just post this?

This economy is dead in the water right now

Again, I say, some is not the opposite of real. It appears you agree, but you still want to argue,

 

[Listening]

You and I have gone over this all before. And you always continue to ignore FACTS that will never ever change. Like the FACT Social Security and Medicare are vital and necessary because what afflicts senior citizens can NOT be corrected with your vial punishment.

I love how you use the term "FACTS".

Your statement about Social Security and Medicare are CONCLUSIONS....not facts.

You state them as articles of faith, but they are not.

A case can be made and a CONCLUSION drawn that Social Security and Medicare are self fullfilling prophecies.

I would never vote to end them because of the promises made to those who are now come to depend upon them. However, I would revisit their goals and be more than willing to look at alternatives for those who are just coming into the workplace.

But, I will go back to my statement that what you call FACTS are not FACTS.

No wonder you think you bury people with your B.S.

I present FACTS, you emote a dogmatic ideology, based on.........?

What ideology was presented above ? You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative. You don't get to set the rules.

My statements above still stand. You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.


Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?

Medicare is the greatest accomplishment in our nation's history...

Opinion and/or Conclusion. You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.

I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.

FACTS...

We shall see

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

That is a fact.

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

When was medicare passed ?

And no they don't. Not everyone takes medicare. I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.

But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare. If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.

That is a fact.

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

O.K. I am game. How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

This is a poll. The respondent percentage is a fact. It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S. It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

These are not "facts".

The first statement is probably very true.

The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).

The third statement is not categorically true. It is not a fact. I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

What are the facts here.

Older people generally require more care than younger people.

Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).

Many live on S.S. only.

Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly. That is a fact...just look at your statements.

In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out. His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.

LBJ always liked giving away money.

You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors. This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.


And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More[/QUOTE]

O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with. Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.

So, we identified a few facts. We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).

What next ?

You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.

I only pay income tax once ....... upon earning. If I invest what I earn, I don't pay income tax on it again. I pay capital gains. Which is less.

 

[edthecynic]

Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.

I only pay income tax once ....... upon earning. If I invest what I earn, I don't pay income tax on it again. I pay capital gains. Which is less.

You only pay cap gains on the increase in value over what you paid for the stock, so that increase is only taxed once.

I was just using the posters "logic" that the increase in stock value was taxed twice because the company paid taxes on it before the stockholder paid taxes on it. The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again. But just like wages were taxed only once after they were paid in wages, capital gains are taxed only once after they are realized by the stockholder.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again.

Not by the earner. Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The lack of regulations destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Not regulations. Politicians willing to look the other way as long as their political interests are served.
Federal and state regulations are crushing legitimate business. Confiscatory taxation is doing the same.

 

[edthecynic]

The same could be said for wages, there were taxes paid many times on the same dollar before it was paid in wages and taxed again.

Not by the earner. Taxation upstream by my employer is not levied against or credited to me.

You keep pulling quotes out of their context!

The poster I was replying to was claiming the upstream taxes paid by the corporation made the taxes paid by the stockholder a double taxation on capital gains. I merely pointed out if upstream taxes make for double taxation on capital gains, then upstream taxes also make income taxes double taxation.
Get it?

 

[Murf76]

Whenever CON$ are confronted with facts that explode their brainwashing they go into insult mode as programmed.

We both know that capital gains are never taxed until they are realized, and then for the very first time, so you have reduced yourself to out and out lying. even if you are going to argue that all money has been taxed before as it passed through other hands before it became capital gains in the tycoons hands and therefore is entitled to special tax privilages, the exact same thing could be said for wages and therefore wages deserve the same special tax privilages.

The real difference between the Left and the Right is the Right believes they can make up bullshit about what anyone else THINKS. The Right have anointed themselves as mind-readers.

Insult? Observation? Take it as you will. By process of elimination there's nothing left to conclude but that your stance is nothing more than the same class warfare political strategy that Barack Obama employs.

Investment capital IS taxed twice. It's taxed when the company earns income and it's taxed again when stocks are cashed in. What's more, greedy leftists seem to forget that while it's true that the very wealthy are profiting in higher dollar amounts, they aren't the only ones investing these days. Since the advent of 401ks, IRAs, and other retirement plans, middle America is invested as well with "42 percent of all returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000. Seventy-two percent, or 6.4 million returns, were for households with incomes below $100,000". The elderly, in particularly are "two and a half times as likely to realize capital gains in a given year as are tax filers under the age of sixty-five".

The conpany and the investor are two separate entities. Each one is taxed only once. Your stupid argument was shot down in advance if you had only read the post you were replying to. Wages have been taxed as the dollars passed through other hands before they were paid as wages, so wages should get the same special tax privilages as capital gains.

And as fat as that bullshit that the little guy is getting a big share of the capital gains, the top 20% own 90% of all the stock and the bottom 80% own 10%. So while a lot of little people have some stock through an mutual fund, etc., the amount is so miniscule they are not getting very much from their stock.

The rest of your post was just a desperate attempt to change the subject awayu from an argument you know you are wrong about. Even your MessiahRushie admits that wage earner income is what is taxed the most to keep the wage earner from becoming wealthy as the capital gains tycoon. And this little tidbit from your link proves it. Wage earners pay 33 times more in taxes than the capitol gains tycoons.

Table 1 Sources of Federal Revenue (billions of 2003 dollars)

Capital gains tax $45
Corporate income tax $132
Individual income tax $794
Social Security taxes $713
Total revenues $1,782
Source: Historical Tables: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 2.1, p. 22. Capital Gains from CBO.
Note: Columns do not add because not all sources of federal revenue are shown.

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

To begin with, ignoring the rest of my post as you did, is hardly a refutation of my argument that the current administration is UNWORTHY of any additional revenues to begin with. They've proved conclusively over the past 3 and a half years that they can't be trusted to behave responsibly with it.

In response to your argument on capital gains... I would still disagree. You say that two separate entities are being taxed, but the investors essentially ARE the corporation. They provide the capital, and the money that they buy their stocks with is taxed as earned income before the stock is even bought, at the corporate level when profits are made, and again as capital gains taxes.

Don't forget that Obama's Robin Hood political gambit is not targeted simply toward giant corporations and investors. Most of the small businesses affected would be LLCs and S Corps., and those business would see their taxes raised as income tax.

What Obama is doing is pointlessly divisive. The only one he wants to help is HIMSELF. 'Eating the Rich' wouldn't provide a drop in the bucket and he KNOWS that. He knows it. We don't have a revenue problem. We've got a spending problem. Revenues have tripled since 1965, and that's in adjusted dollars. But our spending has more than quintupled. And this administration won't even put out a budget.

He's yanking you people around, depending upon your partisanship to blind you from seeing his incompetence.

 

[Jackson]

When Obama says to anyone successful that they didn't get there "on their own" he's merely reminiscing of his own rise to success. He didn't get here on his own merits. Just read...

Obama: The Affirmative Action President. WASHINGTON POST

Obama: The Affirmative Action President. WASHINGTON POST. Written by : Matt Patterson

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?


Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present&#8221 ; and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.


And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?


Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:


To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.


Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:


And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?


Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.



Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are notqualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.


Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.


True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the nextstep, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?


In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.


And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?


In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

Thank you to Black Dog for first bringing this to the board.

 

[Bfgrn]

I love how you use the term "FACTS".

Your statement about Social Security and Medicare are CONCLUSIONS....not facts.

You state them as articles of faith, but they are not.

A case can be made and a CONCLUSION drawn that Social Security and Medicare are self fullfilling prophecies.

I would never vote to end them because of the promises made to those who are now come to depend upon them. However, I would revisit their goals and be more than willing to look at alternatives for those who are just coming into the workplace.

But, I will go back to my statement that what you call FACTS are not FACTS.

No wonder you think you bury people with your B.S.

What ideology was presented above ? You wonder to where you want to and only address what fits your narrative. You don't get to set the rules.

My statements above still stand. You present conclusions as facts and that is akin to misrepresentation.


Can you name ONE country that has a private health care system that works? I can name dozens of industrialized countries that have government run universal health care that cost less the HALF of what our cartel run system costs per capita. And they are all way ahead of America's ranking at or near the bottom of the heap in infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and life expectancy?



Opinion and/or Conclusion. You'd need to provide a standard for how we would determine this.

I happen to think it is a mess......and my opinion is just as useless as yours.



We shall see



That is a fact.



When was medicare passed ?

And no they don't. Not everyone takes medicare. I have posted the business about the Mayo in Phoenix enough to say look it up yourself.

But, it is true that once you pass a certain age, you have access to Medicare. If you want to go on a supplemental plan (as in you choose), you can get access to more health care.

That is a fact.



O.K. I am game. How did Medicare bring down poverty rates ?



This is a poll. The respondent percentage is a fact. It says nothing else and does not support the conclusion that it is the greatest achievement in the history of the U.S. It simply says that we've managed to get the elderly hooked on a government program.

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

These are not "facts".

The first statement is probably very true.

The second statement needs some financials put behind it (and some good financials....not some government bull).

The third statement is not categorically true. It is not a fact. I would be willing to be that it makes the lives of most seniors "better" (given we can agree on what better means).

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

What are the facts here.

Older people generally require more care than younger people.

Most seniors live on less income (and have less expenses outside of medical care).

Many live on S.S. only.

Let's add that the government has always told people that S.S. should not be seen as the only retirement income for the elderly. That is a fact...just look at your statements.

In 1965 LBJ was swimming in money to dole out. His S.S. increases (from what I recall) were simply based on getting the trust fund lowered...it was getting that large.

LBJ always liked giving away money.

You've quoted this before...BTW and did not answer the question as to why I we have to preserve homes and savings for seniors. This is not a fact nor an objective of the program.


And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

O.K. the blathering in the website quote is more than I want to deal with. Needless to say they can quote some facts, but then draw conclusions that I don't agree with and are not supported by their so called facts.

So, we identified a few facts. We've weeded out a lot of bull (opinion called fact...).

What next ?

You certainly have not made the case for it being the greatest accomplishment of this country.[/QUOTE]

What next... how about seeing if you are open minded enough to listen to a 15 year executive VP at CIGNA who testified under oath before Congress and has tried to inform the American people the truth about private insurance cartels?

Are you up to it?

Wendell Potter, who retired last April from his job as head of communications for the CIGNA health insurance company, has been in the news since then as a whistle-blowing critic of the insurance industry. Today I belatedly read his June 24 testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (see here) watched his July 10 interview with Bill Moyers (see here).

Potter is especially clear about the way short term considerations drive the behavior of for-profit insurers:

The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies’ quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the "medical-loss" ratio - the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they’ve failed to trim medical costs. I have seen an insurer’s stock price fall 20 percent or more in a single day after executives disclosed that the company had to spend a slightly higher percentage of premiums on medical claims during the quarter than it did during a previous period. The smoking gun was the company’s first-quarter medical loss ratio, which had increased from 77.9% to 79.4% a year later.

Health Care Organizational Ethics: Wendell Potter on For-Profit Health Insurance

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]

 

[barry1960]

Do you think you might have read into what Obama said just a bit?

After 3 1/2 years of an Obama Administration, Barry...I think I've got a pretty good fix on what Obama's feelings are towards the Private Sector. Between his comment that the Private Sector was doing "fine" and that we needed to spend more money on the Public Sector when the Private Sector is still down about 3 million jobs...and now this comment about how it wasn't individuals that built their businesses and that they owe much of it to the government...it's pretty obvious that our current President is not on your "side" if you're a business owner in this country. Barack primarily sees the Private Sector as the means to fund Government...which he sees as the answer to all problems.

After 3+ years of the Obama Presidency, it's pretty clear we have a collectivist in the White House.

A collectivist, you mean like communism, or what?

The truth is that Obama is a capitalist who believes in more government intervention than conservatives, who wish to decrease government intervention. Obama would tend towards Keynesian economics as opposed to the economic theories of Friedman. There are no communists or facists in the equation.

Perhaps it would be better to advocate reasons for greater or lessor government regulation in business. lower of higher taxes on businesses and such rather than rant with such strawman arguments that Obama wishes for complete government control of business.

Obama comments that you did not get here on your own and somehow it is extrapolated into a government takeover of private business. When posters state such, it seems to lesson their credibility.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.

OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

 

[Bfgrn]

The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.

OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

Washington Post

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The truth is that Obama is a capitalist.

OMG!!! TOO perfectly stupid!!! He had 2 communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, is openly for single payer, and is beloved by the CPUSA.

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy’s camp."[4]

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium


Buckley endorsed Chambers’ analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but “revolutionary” in its nature and intentions, seeking “a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

and???????????????????????????