Something is becoming more obvious to the typical American.
The system is rigged.
It is rigged by the dominance of big money in our elections and government. It is rigged by the exclusive narrow interests of the economic elites imposed on public policy. It is rigged by the suppression of democracy by the radical Right. The system is rigged by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the elites while increasing debt, and reducing public services. It is rigged by financial sector deregulation, off-shoring jobs, corporate written trade agreements and other public policies imposed by the elites through campaign contributions and lobbying.
This is the class war that has been waged upon us. It is not being waged by just Republicans. Democrats have been serving the elite interests as well. They need their campaign contributions too. One of the best tools for preventing Wall Street financial abuse and collapse was Glass/Steagall, and that was repealed by Clinton and the Republicans.
The economic elites are disproportionately and exponentially amassing wealth. There’s nothing wrong with rising profits or increasing wealth in and of themselves. But at what cost?
At the same time the majority is either losing or struggling to maintain their standard of living, often with little job security.
This is correctly perceived as a class war.
Most Americans agree.
A new Pew poll shows 66 percent of Americans believe there's some serious class warfare in this country.
The radical Right and certain aristocratic elites are not only unwilling to see this problem as class warfare, but are actively denying it while perpetuating it.
The good news is Americans are waking up to recognize this rigged system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
106 comments:
"The radical Right and certain aristocratic elites are not only unwilling to see this problem as class warfare, but are actively denying it while perpetuating it."
Hmm, everything I read is Republicans pointing out the class warfare and Democrats claiming there is none.
HR,
Where did you read that?
The "Heathen......" needs read more, and cherry pick less, imo.:)
Dave, if you agree with "The Future" and don't want opposing views around here, just say the word. I'm sure I can find other places to spend my time.
Where's all this liberal tolerance I keep hearing about? Apparently that doesn't include tolerance for conservatives.
===
As for where I heard that, I'm honestly surprised that it was unfamiliar to you since, from my perspective, it's fairly common. Since I'm not prepared, give me some time and I'll offer a few examples.
BTW, my intent isn't to cherry-pick. I fully expect that both sides claim the other is engaging in class warfare, so I'm not trying to argue that it's only one way. But I was surprised that that was your claim.
Dave,
Thank you for thos excellent post which is brimming with TRUTH! Those conservative Republicans who delight in parading their utterly groundless "class warfare" claim should just look in the mirror at the grossly unfair nonsense they support. Mitt Romney, as cold, plastic, and uncaring as he is, dishonestly tries to frame this as "the politics of envy", when in fact it is about the politics of common sense and FAIRNESS.
If class warfare were a reality, all the posh gated communities and upscale stores would be in flames and crumbling. These self-centered elitist snobs are goddam lucky that is not the case. They should simply count their blessings, shut their lying mouths, and actually DO something about the vast disparity of wealth before making such reckless and irresponsible statements. Otherwise, before long, they WILL see REAL class warfare, and it won't be pretty!!!
Oh that darn system, it sure screws people over.
Fundamentally our system hasn't changed much since 1866. American politics are and have always been corrupt as hell. In fact, only 50 years ago they were far more corrupt. 100 years ago, they were more corrupt still.
Government will always be "corrupt" no matter what system is in place. The Chinese have total government control, and their government is far more corrupt than ours. Graft is pretty much the national past time of France. Nature of the beast. You cannot reform it away. All you can do is limit it's power, and hence I just about every time there is some bill or policy that strengthens government I oppose it - because no matter what your intentions are you are handing the thieves a bigger gun. Our government has clearly grown in every way compared to what it did 100, 50, or even 10 years ago. It's gets bigger and bigger and more powerful every day. As it gets bigger and more powerful it will serve you less and less as the two variables are connected.
The reason why you correctly have noticed the "elites" are more and more in control is because ever since the country was founded Americans have given "elites" an ever larger and more powerful tool. And they'll keep doing it too. The only option against it in 2012 to oppose it is Ron Paul, and his foreign policy is suicidal.
This is the monster big government has created. Now get in bed and lie with it. Liberals like you were it's chief architect no matter what their intentions were. You and they forgot a variable in your state equation... human nature.
The term "class warfare" is kind of a red herring. The republicans use it to oppose tax increases on the rich. Warfare has a negative connotation, so if tax increases are warfare, it "obviously" must be bad. There is really no warfare going on at all. It is just that the rich want to pay less and everyone else (will not EVERYONE) wants them to pay more.
In addition to that Pew survey, there's another bright spot: the attacks between Romney and his GOP rivals. All these arguments about whether Bain Capital created jobs or whether it destroyed companies and eliminated jobs for fun and profit; whether private equity firms are helping the economy or whether they're just vultures -- these arguments are changing the conversation. This subject has seeped into the public consciousness.
I saw an article yesterday saying that private equity firms are very uneasy about these discussions. They want their financial trickery to be too complicated for the average person to discuss or even understand. This new publicity is forcing them out from under the rocks they've been hiding under. They're in the same predicament as a room full of cockroaches when someone has just turned the lights on.
After Jack's first comment, I'm a little confused. Dave, you are saying that we're now engaged in class warfare, right? Because Jack says he agrees with you and then says Republican complaints about class warfare are groundless. Jerry seems to confirm it.
I think the only class warfare going on is coming from the White House. President Obama is eager to drive a wedge between the poor and everyone else. He's embraced the Occupy movement, which is all about class warfare: the 1% vs. the 99%.
Dave, it sounds like you're with the conservatives on this one, lamenting class warfare. Problem is, you don't see the class warfare rhetoric from the left.
"The system is rigged by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the elites...
The truth of this statement is really exemplified by the tax cut proposals of the republican presidential candidates. As this article point out,
"the average tax cuts received by the richest 1 percent of Americans under the Republican plans would be 270 times as large as the cut received by the middle class..."
If you actually look at the reference for the 270 number, you will see that they are talking about Perry's proposal and using actually dollars, $1000 savings for the middle 20%, and $272,730 for the top 1%. Using actual dollars distorts the difference because of course the rich will pay more dollars because they make more dollars.
But let's look at the savings as a percent of income. Using these same figures, the middle 20% saves 2% of the earnings, while the top 1% saves 16.7%, a little more than 8 times the savings of the middle 20%. While 8 times is certainly not as bad as 270 times, it is still highly tilted to the rich elite.
Free,
You say,
"American politics are and have always been corrupt as hell. In fact, only 50 years ago they were far more corrupt. 100 years ago, they were more corrupt still."
So,you think things are getting better, less corrupt than they use to be.
And then you go on to say,
"Our government has clearly grown in every way compared to what it did 100, 50, or even 10 years ago. It's gets bigger and bigger and more powerful every day."
So, are you saying that the solution to corruption is still bigger government?
HR,
I always welcome your comments.
Jack,
Class warfare would be more accurateley labeled "rigged upward economic redistribution", or "trickle up economics".
That would differentiate what each side calls class warfare. Each has it's own spin on the term.
Free,
You're right. Our standard of living, even for most of our poor, is well above many other places.
But that is slipping away with globalization. We will be dragged down more than they will be raised up.
Corruption by special interests, sweetheart deals, and other acts of favoritism and cronyism will always be there. But what is growing is the broader corruption nurtured by campaign finance and other influence peddling.
The essence of this corruption is not the size of the government per se, but the proportion of influence by the wealthy minority over the majority.
And this is what is increasing far more than the size of the government.
It's the Golden Rule where those with the most gold make the rules.
That will never be fixed without systemic reform, and very few politicians dare to suggest it.
At least one socialist, Sanders, has proposed something, but the vast majority of congress are political whores.
For them, it is not a problem. It is for the rest of us, though.
Tom,
As we know, instead of being a job creator, Romney is a job cremator. I think this will be his albatross.
So,you think things are getting better, less corrupt than they use to be.
Yes. It's hard for it not to in this era of mass communications. Things that come to my mind, Tammany Hall, Nixon playing golf with Anthony Provenzano, the Church Committee, Joe Kennedy's "participation" in the election of his sons, the entire administration of U.S. Grant are just a few examples. You want to see some real corruption, read about the rampant war profiteering during the Civil War or the building of the trans-continental railroad.
So, are you saying that the solution to corruption is still bigger government?
I can see how that can be confusing. What I'm saying is our system isn't getting better because of bigger government, but because of the internet and mass communications. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. However, it is only logical to accept the following facts.
1) Governments and humans in general are corrupted by power.
2) Governments always get bigger and more powerful.
Therefore, as government grows in power the more and more people required to staff it will become corrupted by it's power. The answer is to limit the size and power of government and the services it provides, to keep the number of corrupted people who can wield the power of law to a minimum and their tools to exert that power on us as weak as possible. Certainly the power of a CEO is great, but without government is limited to his company and the most he can do is fire you or sue you in court. Now let us look at someone on the surface much less powerful than our CEO... a humble accountant for the IRS. Who in reality wields more power? The CEO can't freeze your bank accounts, take assets, and search your house can he? That bureaucrat can. Meld bureaucrats together with "rich elites" as we have in this country? You get a consolidation of power that just begs for more and more corruption.
There is of course an answer to that problem, and the assumption that giving government more power or authority or money will fix it is quite silly. It's like getting a drug addict to quit drugs by giving them more drugs. It just doesn't make sense. Socialism looks nice on paper, but in the end you end up with a rotted corrupt stew like Europe has had to deal with for centuries.
But that is slipping away with globalization. We will be dragged down more than they will be raised up.
Fighting Globalization is like fighting gravity. It always wins in the end. The answer of course is to compete, not go the isolationist route. After all, North Korea tried it and it didn't work out very well. Come to think of it, it didn't work out very well for America when we tried it either. I don't pretend to know what your answer is to make it the global marketplace, but if it's isolation and mercantilism it history isn't on your side.
Just because we are Americans doesn't make us immune to the law of supply and demand. China does it cheaper because they have basically no environmental standards, worker protection laws, and their works work cheap. We have quality. Quality goes a long way for some things, but it alone won't save you. Americans will just have to take a pay cut in wages. Nobody likes that, but if you want to compete with China that's the way it is. We can make the minimum wage 10000.00 an hour and it won't make anyone richer if no one has a job because China makes everything.
but the proportion of influence by the wealthy minority over the majority.
Do the names Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbuilt, and Ford ring a bell? This is hardly new. Go to New Port Rode Island, and see what "wealth redistribution" looked like in the 1900s with the uber rich's sea side "cottages."
Crony Capitalism isn't new in this country, it's more of a time honored tradition. One not linked to Laze-Faire capitalism either might I add. Under laze fare, nobody gets government favors because government is too weak to do favors for anyone.
Capitalism is NOT a fair system, some will do better than others and some will do really, really, really well while others do really, really bad. That's fine because as my link from above states, everyone does better under capitalism than any other system, and that's why the worlds richest 1% live in America even with China making all their cheap crap.
HR,,, //President Obama is eager to drive a wedge between the poor and everyone else.//
WTF !!! Shit... when all else fails.... blame the black guy, right.
That was one of the most self serving statements, totally unsubstantiated, that I have ever heard. Your credence has slipped...and there is no picking it up.
One again, Heathen intentionally attempts to incorrectly redefine class warfare with:
"He's [Obama] embraced the Occupy movement, which is all about class warfare: the 1% vs. the 99%."
Please cite evidence of such (regarding Obama). Not even mentioning all the former Goldman Sachs upper-echelon serving as his advisers since day-one, his naming of Jack Lew, former Citigroup executive, as his new chief of staff hardly seems like the embracing of the Occupy Movement.
Besides, the Occupy Movement didn't create the class warfare -- it pointed it out and defined it; just as Isaac Newton didn't create gravity.
Jefferson, I've been waiting on you to school me on unions. That's where your passion is.
Great discussion here. It is indeed the Republicans who keep spouting off about class warfare every time someone wants to raise taxes on the rich. But if course it is they that are perpetrating class warfare by constantly favoring the rich over the poor and middle class in their policies. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a big mistake and I blame Clinton for letting it happen. We wouldn't be at the mercy of Wall Street firms that are "too big to fail" if G-S hadn't been repealed. I'm no expert on these things, but the regulations that were put in place after the Depression were engineered to prevent another Depression from happening - and it turned out it was a good idea to have them. Too bad people got so greedy.
Heathen incorrectly (What's new?!) assumed the following...
"That's where your passion is." [referring to unions, while unashamedly promoting his own blog]
No, that's not true. But I do believe, and rightfully so, that unions were a response to the predatory and inhumane treatment of workers in capitalistic society.
Mauigirl,
The Big Money-owned politicians have succeeded in dismantling the New Deal and stuck us with the Raw Deal.
The sad thing is they are not finished.
Dismantling the New Deal, I don't think so!
"The impact of the New Deal is still debated today. FDR believed that the legislation enacted during his administrations saved the capitalist system in the United States from the kind of political extremism that the depression caused in other areas of the world. He felt that businesses betrayed him by their attempts to defeat some of his measures that were harmful to them. Many Americans view the New Deal as socialist, and they are right: socialism, by definition, is state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. This was precisely the outcome of the New Deal. In fact, the New Deal was so dangerous to capitalism in America that many of the programs instituted by it were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court: such economic meddling by the Federal Government is not specifically allowed by the United States Constitution, and, according to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, such powers are "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Some think that the New Deal helped solve the Great Depression. However, in reality, it only prolonged and exacerbated it. That is why, in the rest of the world, the Great Depression is referred to simply as "the Depression." Only in America is it the "Great Depression," a status earned it by the New Deal. As a permanent formula for economic recovery, the New Deal was not successful. In 1937, as unemployment dropped, FDR dismantled many of the expensive government programs. Not all programs were removed, however; social security, one of FDR's many initiatives, still remains today, and causes many problems. The New Deal, and socialism in general, can be seen as good ideas in principle, but in retrospect, advocating them was a huge failure on FDR's part. The result of the New Deal was a mini-depression and an increase in unemployment. It was not until preparations for war led to massive purchases of American goods from abroad that the Great Depression came to an end. The New Deal was such a failure and so dangerous to America's economy that Congress decided, after Roosevelt died, to pass the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, limiting a president's terms to two in order to prevent another president like FDR from taking such control over America."
Answer.com to the question "Did the New Deal endanger capitalism by fostering socialist activities in the American economic system?
As defined by MERRIAM-WEBSTER
socialism is:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2:
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
At least be honest enough to admit the truth about what the New Deal really was and how it opened the door to socialism in America. If you want an insight to the term Raw Deal, please take the time to read
"NEW DEAL OR RAW DEAL", by Dr. Burton Folsom. Not saying you will change your mind after reading it, but isn't it worth your time to back check those who disagree with you?
What "means of production and distribution" does the government own?
Just The FOX(R),
It's easy to copy and paste something and say it is what you think. That's fine. We know how difficult it is to put your thoughts into words.
Yes, that is an opinion that disagrees with me. Thank you. Now that I've read it I feel better.
And you should feel better, too. According to that narrow definition of socialism, we are not a socialist country and Obama is not a socialist president.
You do have private property, right?
Back to your copy and paste, a key point:
“In 1937, as unemployment dropped, FDR dismantled programs”
Yes, and that didn’t work out so well.
After Roosevelt developed jobs programs unemployment dropped every year of his first term. Employment improved throughout all his terms except for one year. Unemployment went up in 1938 when the Dems caved to GOP pressure. FDR shook off the party that accused him of being an “enemy to his class” and resumed programs that put America back to work.
Here are the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) figures:
1932 – 23.6%
1933 – 24.9% FDR inherits peak GOP unemployment rate thanks to tax cuts and deregulation
1934 - 21.7%
1935 – 20.1%
1936 – 17%
1937- 14.3%
1938- 19% FDR caves to GOP demand for dismantled programs
1939- 17.2 FDR continues programs
1940- 14.6%
1941- 9.9%
1942 – 4.7% US goes to war
If the New Deal opened the door to socialism, then that was a good thing. Unregulated Capitalism failed and FDR put Americans back to work.
Unregulated capitalism is failing us again, by the way. Just look at how well the Job Cremators and Vulture Capitalists are doing compared to the rest of us.
Dave, quick question. You say, "Unregulated capitalism is failing us again, by the way. Just look at how well the Job Cremators and Vulture Capitalists are doing compared to the rest of us."
Considering regulation increases every single year... like government spending, it never goes down... how do you justify calling it "unregulated capitalism"?
Dave Dubya, you concluded with...
"Just look at how well the Job Cremators and Vulture Capitalists are doing compared to the rest of us."
Dave, your nuance and word-play certainly wasn't lost on me.
Thanks for the smile...
HR,
So tell us, what new onerous regulations are suppressing Wall Street now?
I'll consider that a non-response and assume you can't back-up your statement, Dave. I haven't made an assertion; you have. Now, can you back it up?
Considering regulation increases every single year is most certainly an assertion.
The repeal of Glass/Steagall was one example I gave of de-regulation.
I take it "Republicans pointing out the class warfare" was regarding letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
Dave, you never fail to surprise me at your lack of knowledge. In your last post, you claimed that Republicans do nothing to address the cost of picture IDs or getting poor people to the DMV to pick up an ID (both are demonstrably false), and now you claim that regulations don't increase very year. Do you read the news at all?
Very well, you think my statement that "regulation increases every year" is false. I thought this was axiomatic (and it is for normal people), but here is your evidence: From Bloomberg, Bush approved 90 regulations costing more than $100 million and 643 federal rules in his first 33 months in office. Obama approved 129 and 613 of each.
Since I know you like to cite conservative sources, from the Heritage Foundation (an admission against interest): "...contrary to conventional wisdom, the Bush years were not a time of regulatory shrinkage; the number and cost of federal regulations, by every measure, actually grew during this period."
==
So there you go. It seems unfair that I have to back up my rebuttal to your assertion before you've backed up your original assertion, but I don't want to give you any excuse to ignore the question. Since the number of regulations go up each year, how do you justify calling it "unregulated capitalism?" If you reject my assertion, then prove to everyone that we are in the midst of "unregulated capitalism" by showing how regulation has dropped off in recent years. Or ask your lapdog Jefferson to do a little homework.
Just a few words about the class warfare charge on both sides.
On the left/Democratic side these charges arise from statistics showing what's happened to jobs, wages, the number of people living in or near poverty, the number of millionaires and billionaires, relative shares of income, ratio of CEO pay to worker pay, condition of our infrastructue, education system including colleges and so on. The statistics are legitimate and so is the concern.
Where some on the left err, thus weakening their legitimate and substantive points, IMO, is in attributing motives to the changes the statistics show. While there is a broad, well-funded and coordinated public- and private-sector assault on organized labor, the other areas aren't deliberate efforts to impoverish the nonwealthy. Corporations, big investors, CEO's and such just want what they want: freedom from oversight and regulation, and the unfettered ability to make ever-increasing amounts of money without regard to what those things mean for other people. All that with ever lower taxes. Nothing personal, just business and just greed, IOW.
Those on the right level the class-warfare charge as a sort of rhetorical shields-up. It's supposed to ward off pursuit of the charge by the left on the notion that continuing to make the charges will lead to all kinds of unseemly divisions, bitterness and even strife in our society. As if continuing on the course of the last 30 years won't ensure division, bitterness and strife.
If the U.S. is still mostly populated by people with common sense and a desire for self preservation, there will have to be a course correction. The top 10 percent have been caught repeatedly with their hands in the cookie jar. They've had 30 years of more and more "cookies." At some point there must be a reckoning and some rebalancing reforms. If reforms don't come about peaceably, through the political process, watch out.
That's not because I said so. History makes clear why it's so.
"Since the number of regulations go up each year, how do you justify calling it 'unregulated capitalism?'"
Number of regulations doesn't mean very much. Nor do regulations always mean sanctions on business or capitalism.
Congress could pass tough regulations to curtail some of Wall Streeters' and the corporations' more outrageous activities. However, if a Bush-grade president appoints Wall Street insiders and corporate executives with no intention of conducting real oversight and enforcing the regulations to head the agencies that are supposed to do those things, the fact there are plenty of regulations means nothing.
Finally, there will forever be more regulations because white-collar crooks are forever finding new ways to screw others, along with lobbying their way through and around existing regulations.
"Number of regulations doesn't mean very much. Nor do regulations always mean sanctions on business or capitalism."
Fine SW, if you want to play Dave's game, why don't you explain the justification for using a phrase like "unregulated capitalism." Now you're saying we can't even use standard definitions, so how exactly do we determine the truthiness of Dave's comment.
I say that we do not live under unregulated capitalism because we are quite heavily regulated. Both Bush Jr and Obama have increased the number of regulations. That seems to confirm my position. Yet you claim that we can't use the number of regulations to define "regulated" or "unregulated." How should we measure?
If you want to agree with Dave -- and since Dave is silent and apparently unable to back up his own assertions -- perhaps you can explain it on his behalf.
Dave,
Share with us your broad definition of socialism since the one from Merriam Webster is too narrow for you.
Why don't you read Dr. Folsom's book and see the real reason for the unemployment uptick in 1938.
HR,
First, now there you go again, telling me what I said. I’ve asked you nicely to not mischaracterize my words. They are there to read, quote them if you want to use them.
We don’t need your version of what I said. Why? Because every time you wrote that I “claim”, “claimed” or “think”, I didn’t. Not one of them. Quote someone's words if you want to accuse them of saying it.
Despite this being one of your favorite distractions, let’s move on.
SW’s points about regulations were sound and reasonable, enough for anyone but a Right Winger.
You assert quantities of regulations; we assert the lack of quality in regulations.
Regulations without enforcement means unregulated. If something is too big to fail, it is unregulated. If something is unaccountable for its failure, and bailed out at public cost, it is unregulated. If it buys politicians it is unregulated. If it holds our economy hostage, it is unregulated. If it dictates public policies, it is unregulated.
SW,
If you ask me, there are no scarier, cold-blooded, five words in the English language than, ‘Nothing personal, it’s just business”.
Just The FOX(R),
I’ll read that book when you answer Jerry.
What "means of production and distribution" does the government own?
And I’ll be happy to read that book when you have no private property.
Deal?
The best regulation of all is letting companies fail. There is nothing like loosing several hundred million dollars to give an individual the incentive to not ever do that again, or for others to learn from that individual's mistakes. Instead what we've done is privatized success and socialized failure, allowing investment bankers to gamble other people's money with the assurance that if they bet wrong; they will be bailed out. The 2008-2009 are only the latest in a long line of government bailing out the bad bets of companies.
It was not a new trend. It is history that will be repeated, as the incentive to manage money more effectively is not there. Why not make risky investments that might pay off huge - when taxpayers will cover your loss? You can "regulate" till you are blue in the face, but as long as the assurance that a given bank or hedge fund is "too big to fail" investment bankers will devise new and ever more imaginitive methods of financial gambling not envisioned by even the most far sited regulator at the SEC. You and I will cover the inevitable losses and government insider traders and politically connected investment bankers and their stock holders will enjoy the profits.
Bail outs must stop. That is the only regulation needed. No one will gamble by buying on the margin without a government guarantee covering your losses and if there are those that stupid who try our invest in companies that do... they deserve their bankrupt fate.
I support government insurance covering cash accounts not exceeding... what is it now? 250k? Whatever, that's fine. But buying you toxic assets? Screw you bank.
First, now there you go again, telling me what I said. I’ve asked you nicely to not mischaracterize my words.
The whole idea of communication is to get another human being(s) to understand what you are thinking. Expecting someone to read your mind is a bit of stretch. Say what you mean, and articulate it. If you fail at this, don't get butt hurt over it.
Free,
Now that is a libertarian sentiment most of us share. Unfortunately the bailouts were a direct consequence of the system being rigged. Wall Street owns more senators and representatives than dozens of states combined. What was his name, Rep. Sherman, I think, said he was told martial law would result if they didn't do the bailout.
Expecting someone to read your mind is a bit of stretch.
Yes it is, but my words are there in plain sight to read. Telling someone what they think sure looks like attempted mind reading, and hypocrisy, especially coming from someone who insists we cannot know another's motives. It is authoritarian at worst, and obfuscation and distraction at least.
Dave, I see that SW bailed you out and you had to adopt his answer. I have to accept it though, but I doubt you believed it before SW posted his comment.
To specify, you say our problems point back to "unregulated capitalism" but it's irrelevant to you that we are more heavily regulated now than at any time in the past. You justify your faith by saying that all of those regulations are not enforced or are unfairly enforced, yet another non-disprovable hypothesis. Obviously, there is no way to measure "amount of enforcement," so you can't be proven wrong and you get to live happily ever after.
At least I was willing to put myself on the line with a way of measuring your statement and a way to be proven wrong. A shame you don't have the guts to do the same.
HR,
Where did I, or anyone, say there were no regulations?
You continue to assert that "we are more heavily regulated than at any time". I don't know who you mean by "we", but I clearly meant Wall Street in my post.
Yet you refuse to show us how "more heavily regulated than at any time" applies to Wall Street.
My case, and SW's, for the term "unregulated capitalism" regarding Wall Street stands:
Regulations without enforcement means unregulated. If something is too big to fail, it is unregulated. If something is unaccountable for its failure, and bailed out at public cost, it is unregulated. If it buys politicians it is unregulated. If it holds our economy hostage, it is unregulated. If it dictates public policies, it is unregulated.
You have yet to show us how Wall Street is burdened with more regulations than any time in the past, especially since they still "own the place".
Merely squawking about more meaningless un-enforced rules does not make your case.
The system is rigged to favor big money. If you disagree, then explain yourself. That's all we ask.
Dave,
Why are you and Jerry trying to make my accountable for something I didn't say? I just gave you the definition of socialism and asked what yours was since you thought the one from MERRIAM-WEBSTER was too narrow.
More importantly both you and Jerry take only a part of the definition.
The complete quote is:
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
Red the book and get back to me.
Just The FOX(R)
My point was "According to that narrow definition of socialism, we are not a socialist country and Obama is not a socialist president.
You do have private property, right?"
You want a broader definition of socialism?
Socialism is an economic and governing system in service to, and accountable to, the people and public interest. It is the moderate system, compatible with democracy, that is free of the excesses and abuses of undemocratic unregulated capitalism and undemocratic one-party dictatorship of communism.
Why should I read the book? You still refuse to answer Jerry's question.
We owe you no more responses, if that's how you want to play.
It seems to me that to say capitalism is highly regulated because new regulations are passed each year is similar to saying that our freedoms are continually being taken away from us because new laws are being passed each year.
I guess unregulated capitalism means no regulations on capitalism and freedom means no laws.
Everyone wants you to read the specific books / articles / sites that brainwashed them. We have all read lots of books on lots of topics.
Here is why I am telling you this:
I want to subscribe to the thread, though I have nothing to contribute.
I have nothing to contribute.
Thank you. Now I can go resume reading that book I started.
Who's "we" Dave, got a turd in your pocket?
According to the narrow definition given, the answer is no. According to your broader definition the answer would be yes.
Now what's your excuse?
What part of "We owe you no more responses", don't you understand?
for everybodies information the phrase "class warfare" is nothing but a take on a military strategy of "divide and conquer"
the important thing to remember about this strategy is that it is fostered by a third party not the two parties of issue.
there are rich and poor on both sides of the aisle of politics, one side is not made up of only the rich and the other side made up of only the poor.
so, i'd suggest that each of you step back and rethink the issue. what third party has the most to gain by pitting the rich against the poor?
what third party would the rich and poor be united against if they were united?
An interesting question, Griper. Would that third party be rich or poor?
jerry,
it would be a party that wants you to have a rich/poor mindset, wouldn't it?
Rep. Sherman, I think, said he was told martial law would result if they didn't do the bailout.
Nah. People would move on. We all watched the entire communist block crumble before our eyes and no one batted an eye over there. During the depression nobody freaked out. It would not have been necessary most likely. The rich who do indeed buy politicians were simply able to trick gullible members of government or out right corrupt others.
We are an extraordinarily over regulated country, however when it comes to investment banking perhaps if that is the only sector you mean than the only regulation is if your company's failure could cost certain people votes than government would be happy to cover your losses.
Again, the solution is not more rules. The solution is people living with the consequences of their actions.
Bailouts and regulations are two different things.
Bailouts prevent people from having to live with the consequences of their decisions. Regulations prevent the rest of us from having to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Dave, what part of keeping your word don't you get?
what part of keeping your word don't you get?
I think it was this part:
rt of kee
What in the hell does that mean? Frankly, I don't get that either. It is nuts.
Bailouts prevent people from having to live with the consequences of their decisions. Regulations prevent the rest of us from having to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Amen, brother Critter!
Regulations prevent the rest of us from having to live with the consequences of their decisions.
Yeah, laws stop all kinds of stuff like murder, rape, drug dealing, terrorism...
Look, I'm not saying we should ban all laws. I like it that murder is illegal. My point is if your goal is to prevent something, what do you think will do that better... people going bankrupt or the SEC. Not to mention, being a bad businessman isn't a crime.
Jerry Critter, your following observation has been unanimously chosen as the Thought of the Thread...
"Bailouts prevent people from having to live with the consequences of their decisions. Regulations prevent the rest of us from having to live with the consequences of their decisions."
It's well said, concise, and so full of "truthiness". John Myste saluted you with "Amen, bother", but I'll see him and add not one, but two "Bravos"!
Congratulations on your award!
Signed...
Dave Dubya's lap dog. [Woof!] ;-)
"Bailouts prevent people from having to live with the consequences of their decisions. Regulations prevent the rest of us from having to live with the consequences of their decisions."
that is only one side of the coin. the other side says this:
the taxpayer is forced to pay the consequences of governmental bailouts. the consumer is forced to pay for the consequences of governmental regulations.
The taxpayer and the consumer are, for the most part, the same people.
jerry,
all taxpayers are a member of the collective of the consumer but not all consumers are a member of the collective of the taxpayer.
I agree, Griper, but I did not say "ALL". I said "for the most part". That means most, but not ALL, of the people are both taxpayers and consumers.
jerry,
the people, for the most part, are consumers. taxpayers, for the most part, are workers or investors and they make up less than half of the people.
You are wrong, Griper. Most people are taxpayers too.
ok, jerry all our disagreement means is that your idea of a taxpayer must be different than mine.
that is one of the problems with starting out with a statement of generality.
First every time a right-wing bigot claims "where's the tolerance for conservatives" Karl Popper should immediately appear and smash them with a ball-peen hammer stating 'In the name of tolerance I will not tolerate the intolerant...'
Second, Republicans are clearly invested in class warfare because it's why their party was invented in the first place. The Republicons have long since kicked out of their tent anyone not interested in proclaiming black=welfare (Santorum) and black=food stamps (Gingirch) and have been on a 30 year mission of rolling back all government functions that do not aid the Rich.
All they are interested in now, is that the Con Game keeps going and the EPA, Medicare or any regulation which stops them from stealing Trillions in Tax payer dollars is eliminated.
Here's a little class warfare for you......
http://theoriesofconspiracy.com/2011/11/list-of-major-companies-supporting-sopa.htm
... just a first step to stop the dissemination of information.... buy "US THE PEOPLE"
... another example of how RepubliCorporates want 'LESS' government regulation.
@Grung
"First every time a right-wing bigot claims "where's the tolerance for conservatives" Karl Popper should immediately appear and smash them with a ball-peen hammer stating 'In the name of tolerance I will not tolerate the intolerant...'"
I think you just called me a bigot, which you can't back-up. Unless you think being right-wing means I'm naturally a bigot, which you also can't back-up.
Someone once made a comparison that I found quite appropriate. You know how you feel when you see a Republican get caught in an adulterous affair? You love the hypocrisy of preaching family values and getting caught with another woman, right?
Same goes for us on the right. We see you guys on the left preach tolerance, so we take a lot of pleasure pointing out how intolerant you become of anyone who holds conservative values. Your ad hominem attack calling me a "right-wing bigot" is just such an example of your own intolerance.
"Republicans are clearly invested in class warfare because it's why their party was invented in the first place."
Yes, that sounds like a quote from Lincoln's campaign platform. I'm sure you're aware that he was the first Republican president. For the record, the Republican Party was established by those who wanted to "restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."
Heathen, you correctly stated...
"For the record, the Republican Party was established by those who wanted to 'restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery.'"
The way I see it (as millions of others do, thanks to Occupy), the Republican Party is now committed to creating a nation subservient to corporate slavery instead of a promulgator of liberty and democracy.
Why the flip-flop? You're certainly not proud of this, are you?
Grunge,
I have to admit the party of aristocrats, theocrats and autocrats does a heckuva job fooling a lot of folks into thinking they represent them.
Okjimm,
The hypocrisy is clear. The Right wants to regulate every woman’s uterus, and every non-corporate medicine a man may ingest into his body, while giving Wall Street everything it wants.
HR,
Let’s look at what meager slight set you off:
The "Heathen......" needs (to) read more, and cherry pick less.
And you went:
“Where's all this liberal tolerance I keep hearing about? Apparently that doesn't include tolerance for conservatives.”
“Where's all this liberal tolerance I keep hearing about?” has become a favorite new projection from the Right. Every Rightie has this in his arsenal when reasoned argument fails, or for whenever the whim allows.
While you personally may not be a bigot, the GOP has been pandering to bigotry for decades. Look up “Southern Strategy” for historical context.
Look at how your current crop of good ol’ boys carries on the tradition.
http://www.thenation.com/article/165576/gops-blatant-racism
In Sioux City, Iowa, Rick Santorum was asked a question about foreign influence on the economy. As he meandered incoherently through his answer, he came out with this gem:
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”
“Right,” said one audience member, as another woman nodded.
The black population of Sioux City is 2.9 percent. In Woodbury County, in which Sioux City sits, 13 percent of the people are on food stamps, an increase of 26 percent since 2007, with nine times as many whites as blacks using them.
Just a few days later, in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich told a crowd, “I will go to the NAACP convention and explain to the African-American community why they should demand paychecks…[instead of] food stamps.”
African-Americans make up 0.8 percent of Plymouth’s population. Food stamp use in Grafton County is 6 percent—a 48 percent increase since 2007.
And then there’s Ron Paul, who would like to repeal civil rights legislation and who once claimed that “order was only restored in LA [after the Rodney King riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Or at least newsletters bearing his name did—newsletters he paid for and once defended.
It is no virtue to tolerate the intolerant.
"Let’s look at what meager slight set you off: The "Heathen......" needs (to) read more, and cherry pick less."
Actually Dave, the intolerance was deleted by The Future Was Yesterday. His/her first comment was "needs to read more and talk less." But you know that because you received the same email comment that I did.
So yes, when a lefty tells me I need to silence my conservative opinions, I interpret that as intolerance.
"While you personally may not be a bigot, the GOP has been pandering to bigotry for decades. Look up 'Southern Strategy' for historical context."
I'm amazed that you brought out the Southern Strategy! You do realize, don't you, that all the Southern Strategy does is demonstrate the historical racism of the Democrat Party in the south, not the Republican Party.
I know you think it's a powerful argument, but it does the exact opposite of what you think it does.
"It is no virtue to tolerate the intolerant."
Agreed. I will no longer tolerate The Future Was Yesterday, on your advice.
right-wing = bigot. If you identify as a right-winger then you are selecting a group which has Presidential nominees who rail about "black people" being on welfare in Iowa (Santorum) and the entire african-american community being on Foodstamps (Gingrich) and worries about "Gays serving openly in the military" (Perry). so that's 3 examples from the upper echelons.
Let's see then there's Peter King's on-going Muslim hearings. And to maneuver away from politicians, there's James O'Keefe and his targeting of ACORN and his latest Voter Fraud scheme, Andrew Breitbart and his lies about Shirley Sherrod, Bill O'Reilly calling himself a "brotha", Brent Bozell proclaiming "you might want to say" President Obama looks like an slur.
As for the founding of The Republicans why do you just claim Lincoln? Why not proclaim Jefferson and Madison to be "Republicans" since they used that word in their party title? It's because you are far too smart and have to be purposefully obtuse in order to ignore the fact since the 1960's the Party has specifically sought the Racist Vote and well before the 1900's Republicans sought only to obsequiously bow down to the Rich, whom they serve and from whose ranks most of them come from.
HR,
The Southern Strategy demonstrated the racism of Democrats, Republicans, and the old Confederacy. We know how those “Dixiecrats” soon became Republicans when the Southern Strategy bandwagon came by.
Me: ...The GOP has been pandering to bigotry for decades. Look up 'Southern Strategy' for historical context."
Your Post: The purpose of the Southern Strategy was to win elections. It was designed to appeal to racist voters. Racist voters who were loyal to Democrats.
Good. We agree.
“Racist voters who were loyal to Democrats”, is correct, but with the past tense being the operative word. They voted for Republicans afterwards, and not because they supported the Civil Rights Act. Northern Republicans did that. How times have changed.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. ..”
“The capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.” - Abraham Lincoln
The Republican Party isn’t the party of Lincoln any more. It is the party of aristocrats, theocrats and autocrats.
I'm not going to debate the "Republicans are racist" meme again. We've done it here before, and the best examples you can ever come up with are -- at best -- racial, never racist.
For some reason, it gives you some internal satisfaction believing that Republicans are racists and bigots, regardless of whether or not you can find proof to back up your faith.
For some reason, you can explain away Democratic racism of the past, yet cannot explain away Republican racism of the past. To you, your team has mended its ways and the opposing team is incapable of doing the same.
I lament your inability to think critically. Your tribalism is rather primitive and doesn't serve you well.
Dave,
What political party did hero's of segregation Bull Conner, Robert Byrd, and George Wallace belong to when they died?
Who did George Wallace endorse for President in 1976?
As for rank and file southern Democrats in the 1970s, perhaps they changed parties for a different reason than you claim.
This guy would have been getting us Coffee a few years ago.
- Bill Clinton on Barak Obama.
Seems to me the southern racists stayed right at home.
Free,
Now there you go again. Did I say Republicans are racist? No. I said they pander to bigotry.
And I offered several examples from the presidential candidates.
What I said was, The Republican Party isn’t the party of Lincoln any more. It is the party of aristocrats, theocrats and autocrats.
Racist is not in there, no matter how much as you seem to want it to be.
Read it again:
It is the party of aristocrats, theocrats and autocrats.
Free,
Your book review stated:
The “shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth”.
While that contention is very debatable, just which race saw that economic growth in the segregated South?
Bigots hate people different from themselves. Like Free hates Hippies.
This might explain better than ever could why the term class warfare is in the news today. I beleive it is due to our current tax rules and regulations. Look at Dr. Folsom's 2nd point, interesting?
Sorry for the cut and paste, but as I said, this article might explain it much better than I ever could.
"Taxes are back in the news. This time with howls that rich people like Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, and many others pay too little in taxes. Let’s make some key points.
First, the Founders expected taxes to be light in the free society they set up. Free Americans would start businesses and plant crops, and that would employ most people. For a safety net, they set up charities and voluntary organizations to meet critical needs. For the tax system, Alexander Hamilton recommended small taxes on imports and on luxury items such as whiskey. Americans would, in effect, choose their own tax rate by the purchases they chose to make. You could cut your tax payments by cutting your alcohol consumption, for example.
Second, the Founders did not approve of the income tax because it shifted power away from consumers and toward politicians–who would make the decisions on what groups should pay what tax rates. In the last 100 years, politicians have embraced the progressive income tax because it allows them to levy a high tax a small number of rich people and redistribute that money to a much larger group of voters. That strategy violates the Founders’ ideal of equal protection of the law to all citizens.
Third, the practical results of using a highly progressive tax have been much worse for the American economy than using smaller rates. When the top income tax rate first went over 50% in the 1917-1921 period, unemployment jumped to 12% by 1921. Then when the rates were cut, unemployment dropped to 2.4% by 1923. Under FDR rates went up again. By the end of World War II, FDR had enacted income and corporate taxes that reached 90%. Only when those taxes were slashed after the war was over did recovery begin. Likewise, the U.S. was in sharp recession during the Carter presidency, but when income taxes were cut under President Reagan, businesses expanded–computers, fax machines, new phones, walkman radios, and many other inventions flourished and improved lives all over the world.
Fourth, those people who attack the current capital gains tax of 15% need to be reminded that when it was much higher in the 1970s under President Carter that fewer Americans made the investments that have enriched our lives so greatly today. As Steve Moore and Art Laffer remind us in The End of Prosperity, “The poorest 20 percent of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s after suffering a 5 percent decline in the 1970s.” The poor, as well as the rich, gain when taxes are low and freedom is high."
Just the FOX(R),
So you believe the rich are suffering under a terrible burden and they are the victims?
And the government won't listen to them or represent them either, I suppose?
I see you've dumped this ridiculous copy and paste elsewhere too.
You probably can’t remember, or refuse to admit, that we had a thriving middle class back when tax rates for the rich were much higher.
The poor, as well as the rich, gain when taxes are low
This is the heart of the BS.
The poor have gained over the past ten years while taxes have been at record lows? On what planet?
The Bush tax cuts have been raising the debt, and benefitting the elites exponentially, leaving chump change, if that, for the rest of us.
Why do you revere the wealthy, to the point where you want wealth to trickle up more than it already has? Don't you know they are doing fantastically, and disproportionately, well?
What is it inside of you that feels the need to service the greed of Mammonites?
My theory is, since you are not an aristocrat, you probably have theocratic or autocratic tendencies.
Or you have the delusion that you are going to join the top one percent... if only the evil commie libtards get out of your way.
I'm guessing it's a combination of those three factors.
JtF,
If you are really interested in the relationship between tax rates and economic growth, I suggest you read this article, Basic Macroeconomics.
For an even more detailed study, rather than cherry picking and misinterpretations, read this series of articles. Here is a link the part 7 which has references to the previous six posts. These 7 posts cover in detailed the relationship between economic growth (gdp) and tax rates from 1901 to 2010.
Dave,
I thought this is how your would respond, so here is Dr. Folsom's web address,www.burtfolsom.com. Since you refuse to read his book, why don't you and Jerry take your questions to him and let him answer them for you? After all, it was him who I quoted.
I finally have to agree with you, I'm way too stupid to debate you, so why don't you step it up a notch and debate someone your equal, if there is such a person? Since liberals are so much smarter than conservatives, you shouldn't have a problem winning.
Go for it.
"The Bush tax cuts have been raising the debt"
LIE
Its the spending that has been raising the debt.
Just the FOX(R),
I have no questions for Folsom. It is pointless to question another person for their beliefs. Beliefs are embraced like a religion or cult dogma. If someone cannot question his own beliefs, he will not listen to others questioning them.
You should know this. You believe only the rich should decide public policy, in their interests alone. Your beliefs never run counter to what the elites want.
You cannot question that. You support every policy that transfers and redistributes wealth to the elites. It is like your religion.
My beliefs hold the notion that a wealthy person owes something to the society that allowed and nurtured an environment where they could prosper. We are our brothers keeper.
My beliefs hold a preference for a more democratic approach to public policy. The interests of the majority need to be considered more, not less, than the interests of the elites.
My belief is that religion should have no place in government. The Republican Party panders to Bible thumpers who demand a "Christian" government. Most of us understand this mentality resulted in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. And the Founders understood this so well they addressed it in the Constitution.
I oppose rule by the minority and religion in government. I oppose further restrictions on the right to vote. It should be an unalienable right, unless treason has been committed.
I believe those things suppress our freedoms. These beliefs are in opposition of the Republican agenda.
If I were to become a greedy and selfish millionaire, I suppose I would then question my beliefs.
Luckily, I was raised with a healthy, progressive Christian wariness of those who serve Mammon. The money changers in the temple, the Pharisees, and the Roman occupiers were the Republicans of their time. Too many of today's Christians cannot see this due to their Right Wing political indoctrination.
Anonymous,
You are brainwashed. Both spending and removing revenue exacerbate debt.
See what happens to your debts when you have less money to pay for them.
The poor have gained over the past ten years while taxes have been at record lows? On what planet?
On every metric I can think of "the poor" are doing better than they were in the 1970s. Our "poor" have running water, a house, flat screen tv and likely a car. And they don't pay taxes.
when you have less money to pay for them.
They already take nearly 2 trillion out of us a year (not to mention the borrowing)
They get enough in government. Time to cut. I'd like to see spending cut at least 65%.
Free,
You didn't exist during the '70s, but I suppose that doesn't make you less an expert.
More Americans have relatively less income than back then. The poor in more civilized countries have better health care than here.
If the poor have a car they pay taxes every time they buy gas. They pay sales taxes at a higher percentage of their income than the rest of us do.
They pay taxes for Social Security and Medicare, even with a minimum pay job.
They'd be better off and need less government aid too, if your "Atlas" didn't off-shore all those jobs.
OK free. Here's your chance. What would you cut to get that 65% reduction?
"My beliefs hold the notion that a wealthy person owes something to the society that allowed and nurtured an environment where they could prosper. We are our brothers keeper."
Well Dave, that's what's happening now with close to 50% of Americans paying no Federal Income Tax, while the rest are picking up the tab. Sounds fair to me.
We have the largest number of Americans receiving, what used to be called Food Stamps, in our history. We have extended unemployment benefits to the greatest number of weeks ever.
Sounds like our brothers are being taken care of by the wealthy, just as you beleive they should be pretty good already. Or is there more?
BTW, why am I not surprised to see you run from asking Dr. Folsom your questions?
Just the FOX(R),
YOU dumped that article. I don't have to jump to your demands as a result of your trolling behavior.
YOU still have not answered ONE question from this thread. YOU are a hypocrite.
You've shown yourself to be the autocratic type of hypocrite now, a regular Just the Fascist.
YOU are the one cowardly running from reality and truth. Why don't you keep on running?
We owe you nothing.
Gee Dave,
In guess you sure told me...
Still waiting for you to answer my one question, "what don't you like about socialism?"
Now that you have called me "Just the Fascist" can I use the term Libtard? Or are you going to get mad again and remove my posts?
Just wondering.
If the Fascist fits...
If the Libtard fits....,
What is it again that you DON'T like about socialism? I missed your answer the first time I asked you that?
What you running from dave?
"The Bush tax cuts have been raising the debt"
LIE
Its the spending that has been raising the debt.
I mean this in the most polite way possible:
Spending and tax cuts raise the debt, as does refusal to raise taxes when needed.
"Spending and tax cuts raise the debt, as does refusal to raise taxes when needed."
John, I can't help but notice that you intentionally left something out of your equation.
You acknowledge the debt has inputs (taxes) and outputs (spending). Yet you only acknowledge that refusing to raise taxes reduces debt, when refusing to cut spending does the same.
There are two factors to consider with the national debt, the inputs and the outputs. You can increase the input, you can decrease the output, or you can do both. Both would solve the debt problem the fastest, but if we were to choose only one then decreasing the output would be best.
We can increase revenue but, if spending doesn't slow down, all the extra income gets spent. On the other hand, if we decrease spending, even if we get no more income, the debt will start to disappear.
HR,
That's only true if you are starting from the point of a balanced budget. The debt will only decrease if some combination (and one can be zero) of spending decrease and revenue increase is greater than the budget deficit.
"That's only true if you are starting from the point of a balanced budget."
Not at all. Even with an imbalanced budget, $1 increase in tax revenue can be applied to reducing the debt; $1 in spending reduction can be applied to reducing the debt. No balanced budget required.
"The debt will only decrease if some combination (and one can be zero) of spending decrease and revenue increase is greater than the budget deficit."
I'm glad we agree. So I assume you're willing to agree to some real spending reductions, right? Unfortunately, no Democrat in congress today is willing to do so. One might call them obstinate in the same way Republicans won't agree to increase taxes.
If the budget deficit is $10 and the revenue is increased by $1, the the budget deficit will be $9. That means the debt will increase by $9 instead of $10 , but it will still increase.
Right, the deficit (and consequently the debt) goes down a dollar more than it would have otherwise. Just as I said.
No. The budget deficit goes down by a dollar, but the debt goes UP by nine dollars. All that has happened is that the debt goes up slower but it still goes up.
Heathen,
Those are all very good points, but, you left one thing out of the equation:
Spending Problem:
Spending more money than you have on things you don't need.
Revenue Problem:
Not having enough revenue to cover the cost of the things you do need.
In reality, we probably have both a spending problem and a revenue problem, but I think the revenue problem is worse. We should cut wasteful spending as much as possible, but we should not deny those who are in dire need what they need. To do that would be to misinterpret a revenue problem as a spending problem.
I hope to God you don't respond, because I don't have time today to deal with your response.
If the Fascist fits...
It's funny to hear you say that Dave because every time one of us say's something akin to If the Commie fits you cry like a 15 year old girl with period cramps.
As for spending, it's simple. They get enough, way more than enough. No more, in fact less. Way less. Time government had to learn to live within a budget like the rest of us do every day.
You didn't exist during the '70s
Yes I did, I'm 33 do math.
The poor in more civilized countries have better health care than here
I've been to . In fact I'm not sure how many counties I've been to it's that many. France, England and Germany aren't doing better than we are so I'm pretty sure we've got Angola beat.
They'd be better off and need less government aid too, if your "Atlas" didn't off-shore all those jobs.
Maybe so, but you liberals treated the people who own those jobs like shit so they took them away and gave them to Chinese people because they don't bitch and whine about having the highest standard of living in the world and demand more of it for free every day with the job owner's money. Are you catching on to how this works yet?
Free,
“If the Fascist fits...”
How protective of you. You have a toady for life now that he has you to think for him and take care of him. By putting words together on his behalf he now has a voice without needing to copy and paste something. That boy needs help. You are so kind to rescue him. He will believe anything you say now, and follow you like puppy.
You’re 33? Well that would make you the expert on the ‘70s, just as I suspected. I’m sure you had that decade all figured out and placed in historical context by the time you were 3. And everything you needed to know about the ‘60s is “Hippies bad, Vietnam War good”.
Funny thing, I read Ayn Rand, and saw through her reptilian thinking, way before you were born.
So yes, you don’t dispute the poor in more civilized countries have better health care than here. Getting that health care means they are doing “better than we are”.
”you liberals treated the people who own those jobs like shit
Yes, that’s the stuff! This is the funny fantasy part where the poor, poor persecuted and oppressed millionaires and billionaires suffered inhuman brutalities under the jack-booted liberal tyrants. And it continues to this very day. LOL. It’s a good thing money is free speech, eh? Just give them a tiny little shred of hope, for mercy's sake.
You are one funny guy, Free, often when you don’t intend to be.
Dave the Libtard,
You have a toady for life, that funny coming from you, just ask Jefferson's Guardian!
Just finished re reading this thread.
The un-answered questions with in are, do we raise taxes or cut spending. I say both!
We "allow" the close to 50% of Americans who now pay NO Federal Income Tax to "contribute" $100 a year every April 15th to the IRS.
We cut non-entitlement spending by same amount as contributed.
ALL other Federal Budgets are rolled back to 2009 levels with NO increase allowed for 5 years in any budget other that COLA adjustments for S.S. and veteran benefits. Federal Employee's wages will not be increase for 5 years except COLA, or until the average wage of the private sector employee catches up with the public sector employee, which ever comes first. This includes all Dept heads, Cabinet members, Congressional and Senate Staffers, Czars.
All Federal Tax rates are frozen at 2008 rates. All modifications to the tax codes as purposed by the Joint Committee on Taxation are tabled until 2017. With this exception. The amount of a charitable contribution made can be deducted from the tax owed at 150% its actual amount. IE: $1000 given is equal to a deduction off your taxes of $1500. This applies to corporations, business and individuals equally.
OK, start tearing it apart, but remember the title of this thread is "What class warfare".
So yes, you don’t dispute the poor in more civilized countries have better health care than here.
I got to experience them directly. I wouldn't trade. I have government health care right now, at the Army hospital system. The one that would lead in malpractice if it could be sued (it can't) and has record cost over runs yearly. I'd love to have my old corporate insurance back.
And you can cry, cry, cry all day and all night about how rich people don't want to share their money with you. They don't care. They'll give your job to a Chinese and you can eat garbage in the street. They do NOT give a fuck. Then you can smugly starve to death.
And oh yeah, the 1970s, that decade known for economic prosperity, plentiful jobs, controlled inflation, good leadership, and great fashion and music taste! Oh wait, the opposite of all that. If you want to go back to that, no thanks.
And as for hippies, the only good hippies is a dead hippie.
And as for hippies, the only good hippies is a dead hippie.
So this is the first thing I read when I go to read the comments. At least I see that this "free" person is a murderous sociopath and I therefore do not have to listen to a single thing he has to say... well, THAT was easy!
I guess with all the millions of people who still identify as hippies, he is talking mass murder on a very large scale? But I see he likes Ayn Rand, so this should not shock me. Amoral sociopaths tend to like other amoral sociopaths, birds of a feather, etc.
Post a Comment