Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape [Archive]

smc

07-19-2011, 01:18 PM

I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

I think the DSK issue and Murdoch issues are not really discussable in the same breath. I will touch on the Murdoch hacking scandle, however. I want to make clear that my views have absolutely nothing to do with Murdoch's political positions or the political positions espoused by his primary media outlets, especially Fox News Channel in the United States.

What is so interesting about the hacking scandal is what it tells us about how class society works. While all capitalist countries are class societies economically, England is a very class-oriented society on the cultural level, far more so than the United States. Newspapers such as The Guardian and even Murdoch's own Times of London have long been the outlets turned to by the upper crust of British society. They are also celebrated for their high ethical standards and attention to detail and truth. They also enjoy the lowest circulation figures among British newspapers.

The tabloids -- The Sun, News of the World, and many others -- have long been the popular newspapers. Why is that? Part of it is the simple fact that they seek the lowest common denominator in their coverage. But a big part of it is the way they cover the powerful, the wealthier, the more privileged, be it a celebrity, a politican, or a member of the British royal family. By printing anything and everything about these people, they appeal to the oppressed class's desire to bring their oppressors down. And those with more wealth, power, and privilege are the oppressors in this simple calculus (even if at the individual level it is not the case, on a class basis it is true).

Now the tabloids have revealed that while seeming to speak for this desire of the "little people," they are actually in bed with the "enemy." Their editors and reporters rub shoulders with the rich and powerful, be it in private or in very public venues. Rebekah Brooks lives in a massive country estate, which everyone probably knew but nobody really saw until the scandal broke and it was shown on television every day in Britain. She who would pretend to speak for the powerless had become one of the powerful. Murdoch, always behind the scenes and always wealthy and powerful, is reaping what he and his minions have sown.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of media ethics at Washington and Lee University, has put it very well. These reporters were kind of the instruments of the underdog in soeity, pulling down the rich and powerful. Suddenly, now it turns out that these people were doing the bullying."

I believe that the full ramifications of this scandal have yet to be revealed. The British government may fall. Murdoch may divest himself of his newspapers, and probably be pushed out of the executive offices of News Corp. Fox News Channel here in the United States may have to be sold, too, perhaps to a buyer group that includes Roger Ailes (thus ensuring that nothing will change in how FNC functions). But in the end, this may be the thing that cracks the walls of the echo chamber.

Enoch Root

07-19-2011, 03:30 PM

I think the DSK issue and Murdoch issues are not really discussable in the same breath. I will touch on the Murdoch hacking scandle, however. I want to make clear that my views have absolutely nothing to do with Murdoch's political positions or the political positions espoused by his primary media outlets, especially Fox News Channel in the United States.

I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

smc

07-19-2011, 03:44 PM

I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

Enoch Root

07-19-2011, 03:59 PM

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

smc

07-19-2011, 04:08 PM

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

Enoch Root

07-19-2011, 04:13 PM

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

smc

07-19-2011, 04:25 PM

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

The word "tabloid" when describing a newspaper is first a description of its size. So, strictly speaking of size, those supermarket rags to which you refer are tabloids and The New York Times (I presume you are familiar with its size) is called a "broadsheet." Lots of mainstream newspapers are tabloid size, including The Independent in England, which is one of the nation's most highly respected newspapers.

"Tabloid journalism" when used to describe mainstream newspapers or other media outlets (e.g., New York Post being "mainstream" and The National Enquirer being not mainstream) generally refers to the focus of the coverage on sensationalized stories about celebrities, crime, gossip, and with coverage of politics and economics that is typically either highly partisan, hysterically presented (often with too-clever headlines), or both.

Tabloid journalism in mainstream outlets typically goes to the limit of slander, libel, defamation -- call it what you will -- whereas in the supermarket rags tabloid journalism involves wholesale fabrication ... unless you actually believe that aliens visited Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, or that a woman has given birth to a baby who is half boy, half bat. When it comes to political coverage, though, the "mainstream" tabloid journalism outlets are prone to making things up, because they can get away with it, or in the case of Fox News Channel, "accidentally" running incorrect information on the crawl or beneath a picture of someone being covered, letting it sink in subliminally with the viewer, and then "apologizing" for it later.

GRH

07-20-2011, 10:11 AM

In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

Enoch Root

07-22-2011, 11:48 AM

SluttyShemaleAnna

07-22-2011, 01:31 PM

Would you care to expand on this?

There was various stuff with her receiving money from criminals, she was involved in some kind of criminal scheme, and of course we all know that only good girls can get raped, once a woman commits any crime, she automatically consents to any sexual act possible with every man she meets.

Enoch Root

07-22-2011, 01:59 PM

There was various stuff with her receiving money from criminals, she was involved in some kind of criminal scheme, and of course we all know that only good girls can get raped, once a woman commits any crime, she automatically consents to any sexual act possible with every man she meets.

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

ila

07-22-2011, 04:54 PM

Would you care to expand on this?

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

Do you ever read or listen to the news beyond the original sensationalist headlines?

SluttyShemaleAnna

07-22-2011, 08:35 PM

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

Well, apparently an assortment of known criminals have paid $100,000 into her bank account, so there's definitely something going on, that cash didn't spring out of a monkey's butthole.

The facts of the case though is that the medical and forensic evidence is in her favour, and the circumstantial evidence that is known to the public seems to back her up too, as does DSK's history of sexual harassment.
The prosecution is going ahead however as the US justice system places so much weight on victim 'credibility', it seems quite likely that DSK will not be convicted.

ila

07-22-2011, 08:38 PM

...The facts of the case though is that the medical and forensic evidence is in her favour, and the circumstantial evidence that is known to the public seems to back her up too, as does DSK's history of sexual harassment...

The medical and forensic evidence shows that there was some kind of sexual activity. It does not prove that there was a rape.

smc

09-04-2011, 05:58 PM

I know Enoch Root wants this thread to keep going. Today's column by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times is worthy of resurrecting the thread.

I am no supporter of Obama. His failure to stand up to the right doesn't surprise me at all. When he was running for president, I went on record saying that he stood for nothing.

But from the point of view of political process, watching his demise has been interesting. There are, of course, those on this site who will chime in with their usual dissembling about his policies. But I hope some of you will be spurred to discuss the process of governing, not just take the opportunity to spew bullshit that's already posted elsewhere.

One and Done?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 3, 2011

WASHINGTON -- One day during the 2008 campaign, as Barack Obama read the foreboding news of the mounting economic and military catastrophes that W. was bequeathing his successor, he dryly remarked to aides: ?Maybe I should throw the game.?

On the razor?s edge of another recession; blocked at every turn by Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost; starting an unexpectedly daunting re-election bid; and puzzling over how to make a prime-time speech about infrastructure and payroll taxes soar, maybe President Obama is wishing that he had thrown the game.

The leader who was once a luminescent, inspirational force is now just a guy in a really bad spot.

His Republican rivals for 2012 have gone to town on the Labor Day weekend news of zero job growth, using the same line of attack Hillary used in 2008: Enough with the big speeches! What about some action?

Polls show that most Americans still like and trust the president; but they may no longer have faith that he?s a smarty-pants who can fix the economy.

Just as Obama miscalculated in 2009 when Democrats had total control of Congress, holding out hope that G.O.P. lawmakers would come around on health care after all but three senators had refused to vote for the stimulus bill; just as he misread John Boehner this summer, clinging like a scorned lover to a dream that the speaker would drop his demanding new inamorata, the Tea Party, to strike a ?grand? budget bargain, so the president once more set a trap for himself and gave Boehner the opportunity to dis him on the timing of his jobs speech this week.

Obama?s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful. So why would the White House act disrespectful by scheduling a speech to a joint session of Congress at the exact time when the Republicans already had a debate planned?

And why is the White House so cocky about Obama as a TV draw against quick-draw Rick Perry? As James Carville acerbically noted, given a choice between watching an Obama speech and a G.O.P. debate, ?I?d watch the debate, and I?m not even a Republican.?

The White House caved, of course, and moved to Thursday, because there?s nothing the Republicans say that he won?t eagerly meet halfway.

No. 2 on David Letterman?s Top Ten List of the president?s plans for Labor Day: ?Pretty much whatever the Republicans tell him he can do.?

On MSNBC, the anchors were wistfully listening to old F.D.R. speeches, wishing that this president had some of that fight. But Obama can?t turn into F.D.R. for the campaign because he aspires to the class that F.D.R. was a traitor to; and he can?t turn into Harry Truman because he lacks the common touch. He has an acquired elitism.

MSNBC?s Matt Miller offered ?a public service? to journalists talking about Obama ? a list of synonyms for cave: ?Buckle, fold, concede, bend, defer, submit, give in, knuckle under, kowtow, surrender, yield, comply, capitulate.?

And it wasn?t exactly Morning in America when Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters Wednesday under the heading ?Frustrated.?

It unfortunately echoed a November 2010 parody in The Onion with the headline, ?Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail.?

?Throughout,? The Onion teased, ?the president expressed his aggravation on subjects as disparate as the war in Afghanistan, the sluggish economic recovery, his live-in mother-in-law, China?s undervalued currency, Boston?s Logan Airport, and tort reform.?

You know you?re in trouble when Harry Reid says you should be more aggressive.

If the languid Obama had not done his usual irritating fourth-quarter play, if he had presented a jobs plan a year ago and fought for it, he wouldn?t have needed to elevate the setting. How will he up the ante next time? A speech from the space station?

Republicans who are worried about being political props have a point. The president is using the power of the incumbency and a sacred occasion for a political speech.

Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.

The White House team is flailing ? reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It?s repugnant.

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president?s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn?t going to be that awe-inspiring.

?The issue isn?t the size or the newness of the ideas,? one said. ?It?s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.?

The arc of justice is stuck at the top of a mountain. Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for.

Enoch Root

09-10-2011, 10:27 AM

randolph

09-10-2011, 01:41 PM

Enoch Now I wonder what he feels about Obama and Hillary. I certainly do not like what's happened. There's the old but true refrain: we've gotten four more years of Bush. It's certainly a lesson. I think I've learned it pretty well. Democrats are pretty much just like Republicans.
http://forum.transladyboy.com/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.transladyboy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=196167)
I would not jump to that conclusion in the upcoming election. Think about what will happen if Republicans get control of both houses. The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

Enoch Root

09-10-2011, 02:00 PM

Enoch
http://forum.transladyboy.com/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.transladyboy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=196167)
I would not jump to that conclusion in the upcoming election. Think about what will happen if Republicans get control of both houses. The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

Tell me randolph, how are the Democrats any different? To me it seems a matter of degree (a very slight one) rather than substance. Am I wrong? I welcome any information for further education.

A note: I have seen a difference between the rank and file Democrats like you, who do appear to have a concern for other people, and those Democrats in power, which appear to have power rather than people as their concern.

TracyCoxx

09-10-2011, 03:23 PM

The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

yikes... It's not about destroying social security and medicare. It's a recognition that those programs are going bankrupt. I know what you're going to say, but the democrats also said Fannie & Freddie were financially sound. It's about what to do to either rescue those programs so that it's actually there for the people who are paying into it, or gradually phasing it out based on age so that something else will replace it for the younger generations. It's not about destroying those programs leaving people with nothing.

I'm really not sure what's wrong with family planning. They should just call it sex ed though lol.

With respect to redefining rape. I wasn't aware of this and had to look it up...
"This legislation would exclude adult victims of incest, women who were raped while drugged or unconscious, and statutory rape."

I think you can exclude the first one. If adult siblings willingly want to go at it, then who cares. The other two are rape. The repubs screwed up on this in an effort to outlaw as much abortion as they can. If the repubs had control of the presidency and congress as you fear, they could just outlaw abortion for most cases rather than redefining rape.

There is certainly religious bullshit on the part of republicans, but how does said bullshit support a corporate takeover of the country?

I agree with your last sentence. Over the last 3 years, the democrats have stuck us with spending packages and royally expanded government which greatly accelerates our debts rise to $20 trillion. The debt level and current spending levels has already brought our credit rating down for the first time ever. This limits our ability to care for the segment of our society that worries you so much without putting us further in the hole. Dangerous times...

randolph

09-10-2011, 05:42 PM

Tracy I agree with your last sentence. Over the last 3 years, the democrats have stuck us with spending packages and royally expanded government which greatly accelerates our debts rise to $20 trillion. The debt level and current spending levels has already brought our credit rating down for the first time ever. This limits our ability to care for the segment of our society that worries you so much without putting us further in the hole. Dangerous times... __________________

We have gone over the "quantitative easing" and the enormous costs of that program in other posts and threads. I hate it that the banks have got off Scott free on the financial debacle.
The massive debt is indeed very scary, particularly in view of the fact that it has had marginal beneficial effect. Presumibably it prevented a worldwide depression, which is very good. If the economy was back on its feet and unemployment was down to 6% I suspect the huge debt would seem less important.
A lot of that will be paid back with recovery and the rest will be inflated away to the detriment of my and everybody elses savings. It will be good for the stock market however.
Indeed, we are in a serious bind and now Obama wants to spend another 450 billion to reduce unemployment,. Where is that money coming from, more debt? Now he wants to cut employment taxes, further weakening social security. Reinstating the Bush tax cut for the rich would only add 80 billion, where is the rest coming from. A serious slashing of our bloated imperialistic military budget would help alot.

randolph

09-10-2011, 05:51 PM

Here is a hypothetical scenario and how it would work out for government income. It is quite clear where all the money is. FDR taxed the rich at around 70% to help pay for WWII.

TracyCoxx

09-11-2011, 12:11 AM

Indeed, we are in a serious bind and now Obama wants to spend another 450 billion to reduce unemployment,. Where is that money coming from, more debt?

How many stimulus packages is this guy going to do before he finally realizes they don't stimulate the economy? There is something wrong with the economy. BO's administration needs to stop printing money to buy votes and try to understand WHY the economy is so bad and fix the real problems.

aw9725

09-11-2011, 07:17 PM

Some interesting posts. I've actually enjoyed reading them. :respect: I don't identify with either party. One thing that has become obvious is that the US desperately needs leadership and Obama is clearly not the "one":

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011/09/02/president-obama-not-leader-our-nation-needs

My ex-wife and I supported Hillary through the 2008 primary. Reluctantly I voted for Obama in the fall. It was in the midst of my divorce. Maybe I can plead temporary insanity? :lol:

Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

ila

09-11-2011, 08:09 PM

...Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

The wrong person.

I don't really see any leaders running for the US president. The only person that has a chance of bringing some credibility to the office is Hillary, provided that she decides to run and gets the nomination.

smc

09-12-2011, 07:41 AM

randolph

09-12-2011, 10:09 AM

The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

Maybe the billions will come from China to build factories here when millions of desperate unemployed workers here in the US are willing to work for peanuts, like the dock workers in the nineteen thirties.

smc

09-12-2011, 10:32 AM

Maybe the billions will come from China to build factories here when millions of desperate unemployed workers here in the US are willing to work for peanuts, like the dock workers in the nineteen thirties.

The United States has all the money needed to stimulate the economy without help from anyone. It's a matter of whose interests the government and the spending serve. Anyone who thinks the wealthiest are suffering even remotely in the current recession is delusional or lying.

Enoch Root

09-12-2011, 12:48 PM

Enoch Root

09-12-2011, 12:49 PM

The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

Wasn't about half of the stimulus bill composed of tax cuts?

aw9725

09-12-2011, 05:19 PM

Enoch,

My reference to Obama as the “one” was somewhat sarcastic as he was presented to us as a “semi-messiah” (my own term… :lol:) by the United States media. Here are a few images from his campaign in case anyone forgot. Sorry… :innocent: I agree with you 100% that we need to work together--I hope that will happen--but seems unrealistic to expect from our society as fragmented as it is. Maybe I’m wrong. My use of the term “leader” also does NOT mean “dictator.” History is rich with individuals who rose to the occasion in times of crisis--I will let you pick your favorites--we need one of them now.

A

Enoch Root

09-13-2011, 03:52 PM

Enoch,

My reference to Obama as the ?one? was somewhat sarcastic as he was presented to us as a ?semi-messiah? (my own term? :lol:) by the United States media. Here are a few images from his campaign in case anyone forgot. Sorry? :innocent: I agree with you 100% that we need to work together--I hope that will happen--but seems unrealistic to expect from our society as fragmented as it is. Maybe I?m wrong. My use of the term ?leader? also does NOT mean ?dictator.? History is rich with individuals who rose to the occasion in times of crisis--I will let you pick your favorites--we need one of them now.

A

I am sorry. I never meant to give the impression you earnestly saw the man as a pseudo-messianic figure. In fact it never occurred to me you may have meant that. Instead the use of "the one" made me think of leaders, any leader, on whom all hopes are saddled. I am leery of any one person becoming a symbol. A friend of mine once put it as: we need leadership, not leaders. I think I understand that. Maybe I do not.

GRH

09-13-2011, 04:52 PM

Just some random musings on the new "Jobs Bill" that Obama proposed. Tracy Coxx has insisted that we don't need more "stimulus." But what of the proposed payroll tax cuts? Was there ever a tax cut (except for green energy subsidies) that a Republican didn't like?

Personally, I feel it's reckless to steal money from Social Security given its long term trajectory. Rob Peter to pay Paul-- gladly have a hamburger today if I can pay you for it tomorrow. But Republican opposition to the payroll tax cut isn't rooted in this. If anything, Republicans would like policy that would make entitlements more likely to go bankrupt (that way they have an excuse to destroy the social safety net). No, any Republican opposition to the payroll tax cut proposal is rooted in the fact that they don't want to do ANYTHING that might help the economy (and by extension, possibly help Obama's reelection chances).

TracyCoxx

09-13-2011, 06:17 PM

transjen

09-13-2011, 07:14 PM

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been greedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
:p Jerseygirl Jen

smc

09-13-2011, 07:53 PM

Tax cut?
Obama proposes tax hikes to pay for jobs bill
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-send-jobs-bill-congress-230355229.html

Read the story carefully, all.

As Obama said in his speech, there is a proposal to cut payroll taxes in half, to 3.1 percent. That is a "tax cut."

As for the tax increases, the are:

- an increase on the tax rate for the wealthy;
- an increase in taxes for the energy corporations that are raking in billions in profits;
- the elimination of some loopholes in the tax code for those making over $200,000 per year.

So, yes, it will be paid in part by a tax increase. And to those who will feel the impact of these increases (and their apologists), in our country where the number of people living in poverty grows each day along with the embarrassing gap in income between the richest and the poorest, I say boo-fucking-hoo.

smc

09-13-2011, 07:54 PM

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been freedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
:p Jerseygirl Jen

C'mon, Jen, they've created lots of jobs ... for lobbyists to carry some of the extra windfall cash the shameful tax cuts have given them into the offices of politicians of both parties and distribute it in unmarked envelopes. ;)

randolph

09-13-2011, 08:07 PM

TracyCoxx

09-13-2011, 08:21 PM

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes

...

I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
No, Tracy will say "I didn't realize the GOP were saying that. You're right. That is wrong for the rich not to pay one red cent in taxes."

aw9725

09-14-2011, 01:23 PM

I am sorry. I never meant to give the impression you earnestly saw the man as a pseudo-messianic figure. In fact it never occurred to me you may have meant that. Instead the use of "the one" made me think of leaders, any leader, on whom all hopes are saddled. I am leery of any one person becoming a symbol. A friend of mine once put it as: we need leadership, not leaders. I think I understand that. Maybe I do not.

Sure, no problem. :) I think it is good and prudent to be wary of anyone who appears to be ?the one? or have all the answers. History is full of examples of this type of person too coming to power?usually with disastrous consequences. Also you make an excellent point that we need ?leadership? as opposed to leaders.

smc

09-14-2011, 01:30 PM

No, Tracy will say "I didn't realize the GOP were saying that. You're right. That is wrong for the rich not to pay one red cent in taxes."

Let's take a stab at the civil discussion we've been talking about elsewhere.

What do you think is a reasonable breakdown of tax rates based on income levels? For instance, should we go back to the rates that existed during the Clinton Administration, or keep them as is with the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that Obama agreed to extend? If you are for a flat tax, I urge you not to re-open that discussion, but simply refer us to earlier postings.

Also, what about corporate tax rates? Should all corporations pay taxes? Should loopholes that create the known situation in which many of the largest corporations in the United States pay no income tax be shut?

Most important, please motivate your answer. What is the reasoning behind the answers you give.

TracyCoxx

09-14-2011, 11:31 PM

What do you think is a reasonable breakdown of tax rates based on income levels? For instance, should we go back to the rates that existed during the Clinton Administration, or keep them as is with the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that Obama agreed to extend? If you are for a flat tax, I urge you not to re-open that discussion, but simply refer us to earlier postings.
It was discussed here (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=192578&postcount=814).

Also, what about corporate tax rates? Should all corporations pay taxes? Should loopholes that create the known situation in which many of the largest corporations in the United States pay no income tax be shut?I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

smc

09-15-2011, 08:12 PM

... I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

This sounds like an argument either for no taxes (or very little) on corporations, or for price controls. I am sure it's not the latter. Please elaborate on this question: is it reasonable in theory to tax profits? If so, what might be done to prevent the burden of such a tax from being passed onto to consumers? Do you believe, as Ron Paul might state, that the "market" can be counted on to solve all things?

randolph

09-15-2011, 09:31 PM

It was discussed here (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=192578&postcount=814).

I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't
think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

There is some logic in just taxing just individuals. Of course corporations and individuals would have to be closely monitored to prevent cheating. Also the capital gains tax would also have to be progressive instead of a mere 15%.

GRH

09-16-2011, 02:59 AM

If corporations are "persons" as the Supreme Court has recently decided, than by God, they can pay their share of taxes like all the other REAL people I know.

Enoch Root

09-20-2011, 06:09 PM

If corporations are "persons" as the Supreme Court has recently decided, than by God, they can pay their share of taxes like all the other REAL people I know.

I find the whole corporate personhood thing to be a real brain teaser. It is so self evidently absurd it's a wonder it's gained any traction at all.

randolph

09-20-2011, 07:21 PM

I find the whole corporate personhood thing to be a real brain teaser. It is so self evidently absurd it's a wonder it's gained any traction at all.

Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Enoch Root

09-20-2011, 08:25 PM

Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Right yea because that funny building that scratches the sky--made of glass and steel, lots and lots of glass eyes--is a thinking thing. Sure. How brilliant then--I mean, how curious it protects the corporation's owners from the repercussions they should have coming to them were they to do something bad. How very very odd.

stephanie4life

09-20-2011, 09:56 PM

Mythought is none of the above. If you work for a living both parties have sold you out along time ago. The democrates support NAFTA, the red-neckpublicans support sending jobs to china. Personally ill vote for a third party every chance I get. I don't care if a german sheppard is running for office as long as its not a dem or rep.

Enoch Root

10-05-2011, 08:29 PM

Occupy Wall Stree (Brooklyn Bridge):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUmyP2PI8JM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_1bYVMwg8k

Enoch Root

10-11-2011, 11:17 AM

Occupy Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu63e7QD_5k&feature=youtu.be&t=1m42s

TracyCoxx

10-12-2011, 08:01 AM

Occupy Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu63e7QD_5k&feature=youtu.be&t=1m42s

Since the occupy mobs like to march up to people's homes and act like a bunch of dunk college kids just out of a football game they lost why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?

smc

10-12-2011, 09:09 AM

Since the occupy mobs like to march up to people's homes and act like a bunch of dunk college kids just out of a football game they lost why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?

In Boston, what Tracy Coxx refers to as a MOB comprises, among others, a number of recently laid-off teachers, union ironworkers who want nothing more than to fix the North Washington Street bridge, several dozen clerks who have lost their jobs at retail outlets that have closed, a large contingent of Vietnam Veterans, etc., etc., etc.

I think the use of the highly charged term MOB ought to be explained.

Enoch Root

10-14-2011, 08:14 AM

Drunk college kids eh? Well, I have my doubts about the movement since it might be taken over by pro-corporate folk but the fact Tracy had that reaction tells me the movement may be onto something.

franalexes

10-14-2011, 09:41 AM

why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?
__________________
And the answer is?

smc

10-14-2011, 10:09 AM

why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?
__________________
And the answer is?

I do not speak for this movement, but I suspect that the answer is quite simple. The millionaires and billionaires whose homes have been targeted for demonstrations in New York City are the ones who have gamed the "system" on Wall Street. They are senior executives at Goldman Sachs and other investment banks and brokerage firms who not only are largely responsible for the economic collapse that begin in the last years of the Bush administration, but who -- unlike Warren Buffet -- have said nothing about the responsibility of their class for the current situation.

That said, I am all in favor of taking on Warren Buffet. In my view, a "benevolent" capitalist is no better than a Wall Street mogul who says "let 'em eat cake." In the end, they are all exploiters.

"Left" enough for you, fran? ;)

TracyCoxx

10-15-2011, 12:20 AM

The millionaires and billionaires whose homes have been targeted for demonstrations in New York City are the ones who have gamed the "system" on Wall Street.Those are the mobs that I speak of.

smc

10-15-2011, 09:17 AM

Those are the mobs that I speak of.

The use of the word "mob" is highly charged. Please define what distinguishes people exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly from a "mob"? When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?

Trogdor

10-16-2011, 08:14 AM

~Comes on in, listening to Silent Running by Mike and the Mechanics~

I myself am rooting for the folks taking on Wall street....my only regret is not being there as well. :respect: I'd get some hard body suit to wear under my shirt in case some of these N.Y. cops get taser happy.

Yes, I am back, possibly to the regret of a few people. :cool:

JodieTs

10-17-2011, 07:25 AM

[QUOTE=Trogdor
Yea! welcome back.
We've missed you. :hug:

I guess you were rather busy in September, what with the world's 4th annual transsexual porn star convention being held, yet again,
........in Leonx, Michigan. :lol:

smc

10-17-2011, 02:54 PM

A Letter from Goldman Sachs Concerning Occupy Wall Street

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)? The following is a letter released today by Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman of banking giant Goldman Sachs:

Dear Investor:

Up until now, Goldman Sachs has been silent on the subject of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. That does not mean, however, that it has not been very much on our minds. As thousands have gathered in Lower Manhattan, passionately expressing their deep discontent with the status quo, we have taken note of these protests. And we have asked ourselves this question:

How can we make money off them?

The answer is the newly launched Goldman Sachs Global Rage Fund, whose investment objective is to monetize the Occupy Wall Street protests as they spread around the world. At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain ? but there?s plenty of money to be made on the way down.

The Rage Fund will seek out opportunities to invest in products that are poised to benefit from the spreading protests, from police batons and barricades to stun guns and forehead bandages. Furthermore, as clashes between police and protesters turn ever more violent, we are making significant bets on companies that manufacture replacements for broken windows and overturned cars, as well as the raw materials necessary for the construction and incineration of effigies.

It would be tempting, at a time like this, to say ?Let them eat cake.? But at Goldman, we are actively seeking to corner the market in cake futures. We project that through our aggressive market manipulation, the price of a piece of cake will quadruple by the end of 2011.

Please contact your Goldman representative for a full prospectus. As the world descends into a Darwinian free-for-all, the Goldman Sachs Rage Fund is a great way to tell the protesters, ?Occupy this.? We haven?t felt so good about something we?ve sold since our souls.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Blankfein

Chairman, Goldman Sachs

ucmeat

10-17-2011, 05:01 PM

Everyone pissed at what happened, bank bailouts and all need to direct their anger at our politicians, not the banks. Why was Goldman saved? Follow the money, of our congressmen and omen are heavily invested in Goldman and others, they acted solely in THEIR best interest, not our country's.
Why are Freddie and Fannie still around? Who are the private share holders in these institutions? Well Barney Frank is one, and a biggie at that so again, follow the money folks. Cap n trade good for everyone NO! Good for a few like Gore and GE damn straight. How is it that these two GE and Gore already had carbon credits when they have not even legally been established, why did they both push so hard for passage of cap n trade...smoke n mirrors, they would have made billions!

Goes back to the politicians, make them accountable or vote them out!

Trogdor

10-17-2011, 05:35 PM

UcMeat, I never felt that our votes count, like the whole thing is a farce and set up from the start, and I quit voting 7 years ago. Even if voting is legit, when have we ever gotten someone we voted in that kept their promises...as well as the fact people outta learn that the presidency is not the be all, end all ranking power in the American government. He, or she, is nothing but a puppet and all these special interest groups, corporations and so on pretty much tell him what to do, and thy reward him for it. Hell, how else could that dumb cluck, Gerald Ford, who was pretty much a flesh and blood Homer Simpson lave the presidency a millionaire?

One thing I would say to solve economic problems is get rid of the income tax, and replace it with the fair tax, which is pretty much a retail tax. People will have more of their own money for themselves, will help bring back businesses, since we got some of the highest corporate taxes around, hence why everyone's going overseas, and people will actually be able to buy stuff and invest in stuff and can get things moving again. Whatever happened, we gotta change our tax codes, since they do not work, and I always thought taxing one's livelihood was stupid to start with.

I guess you were rather busy in September, what with the world's 4th annual transsexual porn star convention being held, yet again,
........in Leonx, Michigan. :lol:

ucmeat

10-17-2011, 06:02 PM

Trogdor

Don't be so down on voting unless you are ready to pursue the alternative. In general political systems can be drastically changed one of two ways. Change the system from within utilizing all of the methods and tools available within the construct of the system...or...attack and destroy it externally, which means the use of extraordinary force, aka revolution.

Evolution in not an option because the change is too slow. When a society is fed up enough, it must resort to one of the two options listed above. There are precious few that have succeeded via the first, but they have indeed succeeded proving the point that it is possible. More often than not, societies have chosen the latter.

Questions all peoples must continuously ask of themselves. is our government working for us in accordance with the foundation and legalities provided to it? If the answer is no, then change is warranted. Forget not, that governments will protect themselves at all costs, and like any institution will seek to preserve itself at the expense of all other, even if they supposedly represent you, they will represent themselves first.

Enoch Root

10-17-2011, 07:56 PM

I am facepalming over the last three posts.

Trogdor

10-17-2011, 09:29 PM

I am facepalming over the last three posts.

What's the faceplamable (if that could be considered an appropriate past tense of it) parts?

TracyCoxx

10-20-2011, 12:45 AM

The use of the word "mob" is highly charged. Please define what distinguishes people exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly from a "mob"? When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?

The videos I have seen show a crowd shouting at police. NYPD say they've had to pepper spray people to control the crowds.

?I think the vast majority of people who protest were peaceful,? said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. ?But there?s clearly a core group of self-styled anarchists ? that?s what they call themselves ? who want to have a confrontation with police.?

Kelly says that there are groups of protesters who?ve tried to charge police barricades, which caused officers to have to respond in force.

?They locked their arms. They counted down ? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then they decided to charge the police. That is going to be met with some physical force,? Kelly said.

Marching to <insert rich guy's name here>'s home seems to me to cross the line.

Also, interviews with demonstrators revealed that many would support violence to advance their agenda. A position I suspect Trogdor, a wanna-be occupy participant, and supporter of war with our federal government would give thumbs up to.

smc

10-20-2011, 05:59 AM

Trogdor

10-21-2011, 01:40 AM

The videos I have seen show a crowd shouting at police. NYPD say they've had to pepper spray people to control the crowds.

?I think the vast majority of people who protest were peaceful,? said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. ?But there?s clearly a core group of self-styled anarchists ? that?s what they call themselves ? who want to have a confrontation with police.?

Kelly says that there are groups of protesters who?ve tried to charge police barricades, which caused officers to have to respond in force.

?They locked their arms. They counted down ? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6. Then they decided to charge the police. That is going to be met with some physical force,? Kelly said.

Marching to <insert rich guy's name here>'s home seems to me to cross the line.

Also, interviews with demonstrators revealed that many would support violence to advance their agenda. A position I suspect Trogdor, a wanna-be occupy participant, and supporter of war with our federal government would give thumbs up to.

All I am saying, Coxxy, is that most of the time simply protesting gets nothing....Wallstreet, for example, knows we are pissed off with them, and they don't give a damn if we are angry and show up with picket signs. Same with many governments across the world. Look at Egypt with their past militaristic ruler, he knew the people were pissed off, but he did not give a damn shit about them, and the people were only able to get what they wanted by getting mean, and getting ugly. You can vote all you want (though I never felt our votes ever meant anything, even if it did, when have we EVER gotten a politician that made good on their promises?), but how is one to make changes needed, especially with something like Wallstreet, which pretty much does whatever the hell it wants, and pretty much can pay off or keep quiet or anyone a people will elect to make the changes. It's like a bully in school who keeps beating you up or taking your lunch money (Wallstreet's been taking everyone's lunch money, hence the protests), ignoring him and hoping it somehow all comes out right in the end never works, you gotta give that bully a good right cross to his chops to make him listen. If you wanna make banks, Wallstreet and congress (since con is the opposite of pro, congress must be the opposite of progress, yes?) listen to us and work for us, and no longer the other way around, you gotta get their balls or nipples in a vice....then you have them in a mood more willing to listen to us. I'm not saying an open revolution is only way to make change happen, but if it happens, I am going to support it.

I do not have any faith left in our government, and I quit voting nearly a decade ago, feeling, along with many others, that our votes mean nothing to those suits in congress. And I for one am rooting for those folks in the middle east who are fighting their governments, since their governments screwed them over one too many times. I am sure the folks fighting in the American revolution against England and its King were considered self-styled anarchists themselves, since England did not seem to give a damn about them, apart from the tax money it kept wanting. I doubt a few cheesy picket signs are going to change or scare Wallstreet, Coxxy.

Soooo, Coxxy, let's hear (read?) your plan, if it were up to you on how to deal with Wallstreet. ~taps foot and says in a Sonic the Hedgehog voice~ I'm waaaaaaaaaaaitiiiinnnnng!

Enoch Root

10-21-2011, 12:36 PM

What's the faceplamable (if that could be considered an appropriate past tense of it) parts?

Companies do what they do because of greed--with or without taxes, be they low or high. Your comment about them in regards to taxes falls to that old line of the poor private sector always being the victim of government. When a system is dependent on greed anything goes.

Enoch Root

10-21-2011, 12:37 PM

Color me cynical but I do not think Tracy's problem with the Occupy movement has anything to do with "mobs" and everything to do with its clear upsurge of solidarity.

Enoch Root

10-21-2011, 01:37 PM

Keith Olbermann reads statement from Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5arXNizaJo&feature=related

TracyCoxx

10-23-2011, 09:56 AM

Since the occupy mobs like to march up to people's homes and act like a bunch of dunk college kids just out of a football game they lost why don't they march up to Warren Buffett's house and protest the billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes?When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?
When those members of congress are off in DC making decisions about 1/6th of the economy with no public buy-in causing 27 states to file suit against the government and a few federal courts to rule their actions unconstitutional it tends to get people worked up.

When those congressmen do finally come to listen to their constituents in town hall meetings, yes, they will get an earfull. But it took place at townhall meetings... not the congressmen's homes.

You didn't answer my question about why billionaires like Warren Buffet who don't pay their taxes are ignored by the occupy movement.

Trogdor

10-23-2011, 04:55 PM

That's because rich guys who don't pay their taxes pay off those in congress.

I say get rid of the income tax, I always felt it stupid to be taxed on one's livelihood...I don't want to spend 1/3 of my working hours working for that asshole, Uncle Sam...especially since we get nothing out of it.....and replace it with the fair tax...and that way, everyone benefits. I'd rather have some retail tax than having to give up a large chunk of my paycheck....and we can make room for prisons by letting go the tax evaders and lock up REAL criminals....you know....killers, rapists, etc. It's sad when a person who don't pay taxes gets harsher punishments than someone who kills people.

smc

10-24-2011, 06:40 AM

When those members of congress are off in DC making decisions about 1/6th of the economy with no public buy-in causing 27 states to file suit against the government and a few federal courts to rule their actions unconstitutional it tends to get people worked up.

When those congressmen do finally come to listen to their constituents in town hall meetings, yes, they will get an earfull. But it took place at townhall meetings... not the congressmen's homes.

You didn't answer my question about why billionaires like Warren Buffet who don't pay their taxes are ignored by the occupy movement.

I don't speak for the Occupy movement. I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

As for the "mob" question, you dodged it. There is a time-honored tradition of public assembly, free speech, and protest in this country. People's homes are not immune, especially when they are the people who cause the grievances seeking redress. This is protected constitutionally. To call such people a "mob" is an effort to delegitimize their rights. Show me the evidence of what is classically defined as "mob" behavior at these homes, and perhaps your position will have some merit.

Shouting down members of Congress -- i.e., denying them their right to free speech -- IS more mob-like than marching outside someone's mansion, and more in line with the classical definition of mob behavior.

TracyCoxx

10-24-2011, 12:27 PM

I don't speak for the Occupy movement. I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

Wow, that's quite a statement. Actually you'd need quite a bit less than that to "live". But that's beside the point. I'm wondering if there's any writings from the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution where you draw the inspiration to make this statement?

I'm writing from a phone so I'll address definition concerns later but i tripped over my jaw on that one.

smc

10-24-2011, 01:09 PM

Wow, that's quite a statement. Actually you'd need quite a bit less than that to "live". But that's beside the point. I'm wondering if there's any writings from the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution where you draw the inspiration to make this statement?

I'm writing from a phone so I'll address definition concerns later but i tripped over my jaw on that one.

My statement has nothing to do with, nor does it "draw the inspiration" from, the "Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution."

I'd like to read your continued justification for the use of the charged word "mob."

TracyCoxx

10-25-2011, 07:48 AM

I'd like to read your continued justification for the use of the charged word "mob."Apparently the word "mob" is charged in your mind based on some past experiences of yours, which I obviously can't guess. I've said why I used it and used some examples of mob-like behavior, at least in my interpretation. If you're thinking of charged uses of the word "mob" and I haven't listed those uses then obviously I am not using the word as you fear.

TracyCoxx

10-25-2011, 07:53 AM

I think Warren Buffet and his like should be taxed at 100 percent of their income over $200,000. No one needs more than $200,000 to live.

My statement has nothing to do with, nor does it "draw the inspiration" from, the "Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, or Constitution."

If it's not in the Constitution or even mentioned by Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence, I'm not understanding then where the power or right to take any and all income over $200,000 comes from or where the federal government's claim on that money would come from, or the power to decide how much money American citizens need to live.

smc

10-25-2011, 08:08 AM

Apparently the word "mob" is charged in your mind based on some past experiences of yours, which I obviously can't guess. I've said why I used it and used some examples of mob-like behavior, at least in my interpretation. If you're thinking of charged uses of the word "mob" and I haven't listed those uses then obviously I am not using the word as you fear.

This has NOTHING to do with my "past experiences," but that's an interesting approach to take in justifying the use of such charged language.

The word "mob" is a shortening of Latin words that came to mean a "disorderly part of the population" or, more commonly, "rabble," back in the late 17th century. Its use over the centuries has been generally limited to describing a group or crowd when one wants to paint it with a political brush. And when it became synonymous in the United States with the Mafia, its use to describe others took on a new dimension -- i.e., implied criminality. Hence, you witnessed Eric Cantor call the Occupy folks, sitting in peacefully in New York City (before the protests at people's houses), a "mob," but never did he call the Tea Party disrupters at Town Halls a "mob." He called peaceful Occupy protesters who marched with a permit in New York City a "mob," but he didn't call Tea Party protesters who sought to keep elected representatives from speaking a "mob." I think anyone else reading this thread will understand the distinction, no matter how much you pretend not to or refuse to answer my specific question about the Tea Party behavior (see above).

smc

10-25-2011, 08:09 AM

If it's not in the Constitution or even mentioned by Founding Fathers or the Declaration of Independence, I'm not understanding then where the power or right to take any and all income over $200,000 comes from or where the federal government's claim on that money would come from, or the power to decide how much money American citizens need to live.

I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

TracyCoxx

10-25-2011, 08:46 AM

I wasn't aware that this thread's discussion was limited to ideas that are embodied specifically in the U.S. Constitution. I am talking about something that the people would decide, perhaps under a new "Constitution."

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

TracyCoxx

10-25-2011, 08:51 AM

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

Enoch Root

10-25-2011, 08:58 AM

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy Movement:

They dare feed themselves breakfast (the food having been grown by CORPORATIONS) before setting of for Liberty Park. Also, they dare piss, shit and drink water in/from machines made by CORPORATIONS. And they cut their hair with scissors made by CORPORATIONS. These people should know better, the fucking HYPOCRITES.

Enoch Root

10-25-2011, 09:03 AM

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

I guess you must spend a fortune! drinking nothing but bottled water instead of commie government water. :rolleyes:

smc

10-25-2011, 11:16 AM

Ok, so by definition, as far as US politics go, we're in fringe territory. What parts of the Constitution would you change?

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced. But to call that "fringe" is to employ the same approach as you have with the use of the word "mob" -- at least it seems so to me.

smc

10-25-2011, 11:18 AM

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

This is the same kind of asinine crap I've heard over the years from people who, in response to hearing that someone identifies as a revolutionary socialist, calls that person a "hypocrite" because that person has a job at a profit-seeking company.

We live in the world and must partake of what the world offers. Only utopians and hermits would be able to "avoid" what the cartoon implies.

This is not serious, but it is -- unfortunately -- typical.

TracyCoxx

10-25-2011, 01:37 PM

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced.
Fringe - as in far from the mainstream. I would say most Americans endorse the majority of the Constitution. They may interpret it differently, but overall republicans, democrats, libertarians endorse the Constitution. Even progressives who think the Constitution should be changed seek to do it gradually rather than an outright revolution. But as you say, the Constitution does allow for change, but not fast enough for your tastes You want it to be replaced.

That is not mainstream. Is there another country you'd model it after or are you talking about something completely different?

smc

10-25-2011, 01:50 PM

Fringe - as in far from the mainstream. I would say most Americans endorse the majority of the Constitution. They may interpret it differently, but overall republicans, democrats, libertarians endorse the Constitution. Even progressives who think the Constitution should be changed seek to do it gradually rather than an outright revolution. But as you say, the Constitution does allow for change, but not fast enough for your tastes You want it to be replaced.

That is not mainstream. Is there another country you'd model it after or are you talking about something completely different?

I have to go teach a class in a few minutes, so I cannot provide a complete "program" right now. Here are a few highlights of what I would like to see enshrined in a constitution, with the society that reflects these points. My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

GRH

10-25-2011, 05:10 PM

I'm not sure what you find so unconstitutional about a 100% tax rate on income in excess of $200,000. Read the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

That precious Constitution of yours was amended (through mechanisms set up by the document) to include the ability for Congress to tax incomes. Where in the Amendment does it make any mention of specific tax rates (or limits thereon)? It reads pretty broadly to me.

That said, I wouldn't support taxing income in excess of $200,000 at 100% because I feel this would put America at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, I WOULD support taxing such excess wages at MUCH higher rates than at present. Our country saw some phenomenal periods of growth when the top marginal rates were at 70%. I'd also nix the lowered capital gains rate for capital gains in excess of a certain threshold.

Trogdor

10-26-2011, 07:09 AM

Why not just get rid of the income tax, we were a country long before we had one, and just make the fair tax....that way it effects the rich and poor fairly. And these businesses will have no excuse to keep sending jobs overseas...none that anyone will believe, anyhow. And we'd have more control over our money once we get that 800 pound gorilla known as the income tax off our backs, and can use that extra money, that is rightfully ours to begin with, on what we need, or paying off debts, investing, and so on. Can't fix an economy if no one's buying anything. Also, I'd love to see us getting a refund of our taxes, since the tax money goes to our politicians and government services, and so many people are so unsatisfied and have no faith in the government, we outta get a refund for unsatisfactory service.

Besides, I am sure that there are people, besides myself, that would LOVE to see a sign in front of the IRS building that says, "Gong Out of Business" and it becomes a strip mall or a coffee house or something. :lol:

~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~ :yes:

smc

10-26-2011, 07:26 AM

Trogdor

10-26-2011, 07:54 AM

If by "fair tax" you mean the national sales tax advocated by FairTax.org, you need to revisit the meaning of the word "fair." Taxes are either regressive or progressive. The so-called "fair tax" is regressive, and hence there is nothing "fair" about it.

Having more money in the long run.

And you, seeing as you seem to be the expert, what would YOU do, hmmm? :rolleyes: The income tax is nothing but an 800 pound gorilla that is pretty much screwing over many people.

smc

10-26-2011, 08:12 AM

Having more money in the long run.

And you, seeing as you seem to be the expert, what would YOU do, hmmm? :rolleyes: The income tax is nothing but an 800 pound gorilla that is pretty much screwing over many people.

Yours is a non-answer. I did not claim to be an "expert," but calling me that is a good attempt at dodging the question. I already wrote what I would do about taxes, only a few posts above. Will you answer the question I asked, by inference? Clarify what you mean by "fair tax," and explain how it means "having more money in the long run."

Enoch Root

10-30-2011, 04:01 PM

Halloween Party at the foreclosure mill, Steven J Baum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opinion/what-the-costumes-reveal.html?_r=1

TracyCoxx

11-03-2011, 04:20 PM

Geez... now the occupy mobs in Oakland are clashing with police, setting bonfires in the streets, closing down ports, throwing molitiv cocktails at cops. Nice movement you guys have there.

transjen

11-03-2011, 08:01 PM

Geez... now the occupy mobs in Oakland are clashing with police, setting bonfires in the streets, closing down ports, throwing molitiv cocktails at cops. Nice movement you guys have there.

This is the start of a USA spring uprising :yes:

The 99 percent is getting feed up with the 1 percent who having been living like kings while they barely make enought to survive
And the 1 percent are starting to be affraid very affraid
President Perry may end up like King Louie
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx

11-04-2011, 06:35 AM

This is the start of a USA spring uprising :yes:

The 99 percent is getting feed up with the 1 percent who having been living like kings while they barely make enought to survive
And the 1 percent are starting to be affraid very affraid
President Perry may end up like King Louie
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

This would be your fantasy world... That the occupy nuts are actually 99% of the population. That 99% of the population barely makes enough to survive. And that the 1% are so afraid. Strange fantasy, but despite any facts this is your persistent view of the world.

smc

11-04-2011, 07:26 AM

Geez... now the occupy mobs in Oakland are clashing with police, setting bonfires in the streets, closing down ports, throwing molitiv cocktails at cops. Nice movement you guys have there.

It's notable that you love to tout the U.S. Constitution, but when the Oakland Police attack a peaceful demonstration and injure a veteran U.S. Marine you don't use the word "mob" to describe the cops.

The so-called anarchist "Black Block" members who "instigated" violence in Oakland on Wednesday night ... well, there is a time-honored tradition in the United States (and elsewhere) of employing agents-provocateurs to deal with protests. The majority -- the overwhelming majority -- of the Occupy Oakland protestors renounce the violence.

You do a disservice to democracy with your broad-brush generalizations, Tracy Coxx, and reveal your hypocrisy.

GRH

11-04-2011, 07:39 AM

You do a disservice to democracy...

Could not these same words be said about the majority of Republicans and their voodoo economic policies?

smc

11-04-2011, 07:44 AM

TracyCoxx

11-06-2011, 04:52 PM

It's notable that you love to tout the U.S. Constitution, but when the Oakland Police attack a peaceful demonstration and injure a veteran U.S. Marine you don't use the word "mob" to describe the cops.The mob I described was not peaceful.

The so-called anarchist "Black Block" members who "instigated" violence in Oakland on Wednesday night ... well, there is a time-honored tradition in the United States (and elsewhere) of employing agents-provocateurs to deal with protests. The majority -- the overwhelming majority -- of the Occupy Oakland protestors renounce the violence.Looks like the Occupy movement has a public relations problem on their hands. They have the ex-Acorn members illegally raising funds for the occupy movement and these anarchists creating an image the peace-loving occupiers don't want associated with them. They might want to take a stand and denounce them, or have their movement hijacked.

smc

11-06-2011, 06:30 PM

The mob I described was not peaceful.

Looks like the Occupy movement has a public relations problem on their hands. They have the ex-Acorn members illegally raising funds for the occupy movement and these anarchists creating an image the peace-loving occupiers don't want associated with them. They might want to take a stand and denounce them, or have their movement hijacked.

Wow, you are just ripe for repeating whatever drivel Fox News creates for propaganda purposes. Prove any of the ACORN crap, Tracy. I dare you to prove that ACORN itself has anything to do with this.

Enoch Root

11-07-2011, 08:48 AM

Wow, you are just ripe for repeating whatever drivel Fox News creates for propaganda purposes. Proved any of the ACORN crap, Tracy. I dare you to prove that ACORN itself has anything to do with this.

I though ACORN had been killed by Republicans in their ever present zeal to keep the working class from voting.

transjen

11-07-2011, 03:19 PM

This would be your fantasy world... That the occupy nuts are actually 99% of the population. That 99% of the population barely makes enough to survive. And that the 1% are so afraid. Strange fantasy, but despite any facts this is your persistent view of the world.

I hate to break your fanasties of me but i never said i was living in Central park and carring a pickit sign or did or have i ever said i endorse or support the Occ Walstreet movement
I only stated that all the Middle East uprisings started just about the same way
But if things keep going as they are the warning signs are there and it could happen
And a GOP president who only wants to give the top 5 percent another windfall and put more nails in the coffen of the middleclass will be the match that lights the fire

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

smc

11-07-2011, 03:26 PM

I hate to break your fanasties of me but i never said i was living in Central park and carring a pickit sign or did or have i ever said i endorse or support the Occ Walstreet movement
I only stated that all the Middle East uprisings started just about the same way
But if things keep going as they are the warning signs are there and it could happen
And a GOP president who only wants to give the top 5 percent another windfall and put more nails in the coffen of the middleclass will be the match that lights the fire

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

You go, girl. In the words of Jack Dempsey: "All the time he's boxing, he's thinking. All the time he was thinking, I was hitting him."

Enoch Root

11-09-2011, 01:29 PM

Penny Arcade's Introduction to Collective Bargaining:

(could not help myself)

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/11/04

transjen

11-12-2011, 02:10 AM

smc

11-12-2011, 07:33 AM

All eight GOP hopefulls all claim if elected they'll create jobs jobs and more jobs :lol:
You ask any of the eight and each claim they'll in act the policies that will get America working agian
All we need to do is cut taxes for the rich and the corprations :eek:
OK lets get this straight we need to cut taxes on the rich and it will trickle down plus create jobs hmmnn why does this sound eamiler oh yeah W already cut taxes for the rich and those cuts are still in affect so then the unenployment rate should be around 4 percent after all cut taxes for the rich it creates jobs and the tax cuts have been in effect since 01
Oh yeah trickle down with all the cuts the rich recieved from W the poverty rate should be way down but instead it has exploded
Now they claim that the corprate tax rate is too high and is the highest in the world at 35 percent
but the leave out that almost none pay that 35 percent most pay 9 percent and the top money makers pay a neg tax rate meaning the pay nothing and get a big return to boot
So all of the GOP job creating plans are already in effect and yet unemployment is at 9 percent
And in 08 i believe the GOP claimed it's not goverments job to create jobs
So the GOP plan is do nothing and make W's tax cut perment and make em biger
After all look at how succefull they have been so far
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Thanks, Jen, for continuing point out the ridiculousness of the "trickle-down" theories of economics.

Earlier this year, John McCain proposed a plan for yet another "corporate tax holiday" that shows just who this trickle-down bullshit is really meant to serve.

Multinational corporations got their allies in Congress, like McCain, to push for this "tax repatriation holiday" that would allow them to bring money they've stashed overseas back to the United States at a rate far below the usual 35-percent tax. McCain's proposal is for an 8.25-percent rate, which would then be lowered to 5.25 percent if they could prove they used the money to create jobs.

This was done in 2004. What happened? Corporations used the money they "repatriated" to buy back stock on the markets and give big bonuses to executives. No jobs were created. Since then, the same corporations have continued to cut jobs and move billions of additional dollars offshore.

McCain's proposal for the special even-lower rate for "job creation" is precisely because not everyone has forgotten the 2004 fiasco. Speaking at the Washington Summit sponsored by Reuters last Tuesday, November 8, McCain was asked about 2004 and how the repatriated money might really be used. His response was one of the most cynical statements ever from a supporter of trickle-down bullshit:

"If you brought $1.5 trillion back to the United States of America, it?s bound to have some positive effect somewhere. I don?t see how it would not. Even if they buy more yachts and ? corporate jets and all that, it?s bound to have some effect."

Now, before Tracy Coxx comes on here to argue that having corporations spend money on yachts and jets would actually stimulate the economy in some sense, I will concede the point. But let's look at this through a broader lens: John McCain is on the same side of every one of the Republican candidates for president this year. He has joined in blocking every piece of legislation that has come up recently to create jobs (except for the veterans bill that passed this week). His trickle-down idea is to give corporations a massive, MASSIVE tax break in the hope that they buy luxury goods and thus boost employment.

Cynical? In the words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha!"

Enoch Root

11-12-2011, 10:07 AM

I predict Tracy will write a thoughtful, touching panegyric--where it is made clear the rich are poor distraught victims--to the powerful and that awesome and inspiring virtue that is Greed. Blessings be upon thine Green Lord.

We shall cry. We shall weep and o! how we will hate the fact we cannot hold Tracy to us.

Enoch Root

11-20-2011, 10:51 AM

Corporate America and the Police force:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5N4oJxLAAA&feature=related

ila

11-20-2011, 10:57 AM

Enoch Root

11-20-2011, 11:08 AM

Part 2 of previous video. Unfortunately the retired police officer is not present:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtfgKZGnrZY&feature=related

TracyCoxx

11-21-2011, 09:27 AM

I amazed at the content of this thread. With all that is going on in this world the majority of the content here is about the US. Are those posting here so myopic that they can't see beyond the borders of the US. Wake up people. There are events happening all over the world that are affecting the complete world economy.

Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs. They can't see the big picture in our own country... you expect them to notice the world economy?

smc

11-21-2011, 10:30 AM

Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs. They can't see the big picture in our own country... you expect them to notice the world economy?

Tracy, it reads to me as if you've decided to become a troll again, with your unjustifiable generalization through the use of "gangs." Are you capable of having an honest political discussion? (I believe the history of your participation here would make the answer a resounding NO.)

I have been painted with this broad brush by your post, and yet I will put my knowledge of the world economy against yours any time, any where, in any way.

Enoch Root

11-22-2011, 10:18 AM

Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs. They can't see the big picture in our own country... you expect them to notice the world economy?

You will take any excuse, however flimsy, to rag on people who actually give a shit, don't you?

Enoch Root

11-22-2011, 01:37 PM

Bloomber now, Bloomberg tomorrow, Bloomberg forever! A Special Comment by Keith Olbermann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iNmMPVP49I&feature=digest_tue

transjen

11-22-2011, 02:38 PM

Bloomber now, Bloomberg tomorrow, Bloomberg forever! A Special Comment by Keith Olbermann:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iNmMPVP49I&feature=digest_tue

Not sure after watching this if i should laught or cry

But the little history lesson in the begining is why they no longer teach history in US schools and if history classes do return to US schools Newt would want the students to use that time to do there janitor duties to learn there work ethic
but looking back at history the GOP always did say that anyone not goose stepping along with them are unamerican and pinko commie fags :eek:
So grab an American flag drape it over your shoulders and start goose stepping along with the GOP
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Enoch Root

11-27-2011, 02:11 PM

Third Rail?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

smc

11-27-2011, 02:15 PM

Third Rail?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

Naomi Wolf's thesis is important and interesting, but I think she hurts herself by referring to this as the "third rail." Why? Because in the American political vernacular, "third rail" is widely known to refer to Social Security. Hence, she inadvertently sows confusion.

ila

11-27-2011, 02:44 PM

aw9725

11-27-2011, 04:25 PM

Third Rail?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

It was clear to me what she meant. And I think she?s right. She could also have said something like ?touched a nerve.? But touching the ?third rail? has more powerful and deadly connotations.

Don?t forget I lived in NYC for a short time and used to ride the subway! :cool:

smc

11-27-2011, 07:29 PM

Naomi Wolf's thesis is important and interesting, but I think she hurts herself by referring to this as the "third rail." Why? Because in the American political vernacular, "third rail" is widely known to refer to Social Security. Hence, she inadvertently sows confusion.

I didn't see any confusion as she explained what she meant by the third rail.

It was clear to me what she meant. And I think she?s right. She could also have said something like ?touched a nerve.? But touching the ?third rail? has more powerful and deadly connotations.

Don?t forget I lived in NYC for a short time and used to ride the subway! :cool:

It was clear to me, too. I guess I didn't do a good enough job of making my point, which is that when wants to create a political shorthand for something it is best not to choose a term that is already in widespread use as shorthand for something else.

ila

11-27-2011, 08:25 PM

It was clear to me, too. I guess I didn't do a good enough job of making my point, which is that when wants to create a political shorthand for something it is best not to choose a term that is already in widespread use as shorthand for something else.

The term "Third Rail" may has one meaning in the US, but the linked article was written for a newspaper in the UK where the term "Third Rail" has a different meaning. Therefore the journalist's use of "Third Rail" was perfectly reasonable and no doubt would not have confused her readers.

smc

11-27-2011, 11:23 PM

The term "Third Rail" may has one meaning in the US, but the linked article was written for a newspaper in the UK where the term "Third Rail" has a different meaning. Therefore the journalist's use of "Third Rail" was perfectly reasonable and no doubt would not have confused her readers.

Naomi Wolf is an American and was writing about U.S. politics. Her article has been reposted all over the place; today, a leaflet reproduction of it was being handed out at Occupy Boston.

I am not trying to score points with my critique of her word choice. Why is it being interpreted in such a way?

ila

11-28-2011, 05:58 PM

Naomi Wolf is an American and was writing about U.S. politics. Her article has been reposted all over the place; today, a leaflet reproduction of it was being handed out at Occupy Boston.

I didn't know she was American, although I suppose I could have looked up her personal information, but I had no reason to do so.

I am not trying to score points with my critique of her word choice. Why is it being interpreted in such a way?

I never intimated that you were trying to score points with her word choice. Don't read things into my posts that aren't there.

smc

11-28-2011, 07:36 PM

I didn't know she was American, although I suppose I could have looked up her personal information, but I had no reason to do so.

I never intimated that you were trying to score points with her word choice. Don't read things into my posts that aren't there.

I didn't think I was. I was simply baffled by why the discussion went on as long as it did. Sorry, my friend.

Enoch Root

11-29-2011, 10:08 AM

You two are so cute together.

Enoch Root

12-01-2011, 10:16 PM

The Great American Bubble Machine by Matt Taibbi:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

TracyCoxx

12-03-2011, 10:24 AM

Tracy, it reads to me as if you've decided to become a troll again, with your unjustifiable generalization through the use of "gangs." Are you capable of having an honest political discussion? (I believe the history of your participation here would make the answer a resounding NO.)

I have been painted with this broad brush by your post, and yet I will put my knowledge of the world economy against yours any time, any where, in any way.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. I don't go for politically correct lingo. It is what it is. I have justified my characterization of the occupists as gangs and you need to recognize that. You don't have to agree with me, but at least do as I do and recognize that everyone has their own perceptions. Like with your hope for the country eventually completely changing the constitution, I'm not going to keep at you and keep at you until I can "cure" you. It's your view and that's fine. I'm not going to whine about your view and not going to call you names, that's who you are, and you can accept me for who I am. On a forum like this I wouldn't think that's asking too much.

TracyCoxx

12-03-2011, 10:32 AM

Here's a different perspective on OWS. You won't like it. You'll call me a troll, and I'll say no, it's called another viewpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJEbWMS_IHE

smc

12-03-2011, 10:56 AM

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. I don't go for politically correct lingo. It is what it is. I have justified my characterization of the occupists as gangs and you need to recognize that. You don't have to agree with me, but at least do as I do and recognize that everyone has their own perceptions. Like with your hope for the country eventually completely changing the constitution, I'm not going to keep at you and keep at you until I can "cure" you. It's your view and that's fine. I'm not going to whine about your view and not going to call you names, that's who you are, and you can accept me for who I am. On a forum like this I wouldn't think that's asking too much.

More of your dissembling ...

The difference is that I am addressing your use of language and that you use particular words deliberately to provoke. That is what it means to be a troll. When I raise a question of changing the U.S. Constitution, I don't call people who defend it by names. You are called a troll not for your defense of the Constitution.

This isn't about being politically correct or not.

I have written time and again that I consider you to be an intelligent person. Therefore, I know when you are being a troll, because you are intelligent enough to choose specifically to be one. But perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you really don't get it. (I doubt that.)

I have never sought to "cure" you of your opinions, only to point out that you discuss dishonestly and that you behave like a troll. This is a community, and time and again you disrespect the community with your troll behavior.

You're right: "It is what it is." And what it is is this: you post like a troll, get called on it, and then you're the one who tries to change the subject. That is it's own unique form of whining.

As for the use of the word "gang," let me ask you these questions (two of many examples I could pose):

- When the Republicans in Florida organized political operatives to go to the Broward County Board of Elections and pound on the door as they were doing their recount, and act threateningly, and get in the elevator with election workers and menace them, was that a "gang"?

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).

You want to reserve for yourself the right to use troll language but claim that it's all about the right to one's personal "perspective." To quote the inimitable Tracy Coxx: "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck."

TracyCoxx

12-03-2011, 12:42 PM

More of your dissembling ...

The difference is that I am addressing your use of language and that you use particular words deliberately to provoke. That is what it means to be a troll.Actually what it means is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My posting about ows being gangs was neither extraneous or off-topic. This thread is called Today's Political Landscape. Do you deny that OWS is part of today's political landscape? It is on topic. Does it provoke readers into an emotional response? You assume what I said was to provoke. Let's be honest. Anything I post which you do not agree with will elicit an emotional response by you. Care must then be taken with that definition because it assumes that discussion can be had without an emotional response. As long as any and all opinions of mine that you don't agree with elicits an emotional response from you, your accusations of being a troll are obligatory responses that should be ignored. Unfortunately you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it.

When I raise a question of changing the U.S. Constitution, I don't call people who defend it by names. You are called a troll not for your defense of the Constitution.And you're intelligent enough to know that I never said or implied that I was called a troll for my defense of the Constitution.

I have never sought to "cure" you of your opinions, only to point out that you discuss dishonestlyWrong. I honestly believe that some people within the occupy protests behave as gangs.

As for the use of the word "gang," let me ask you these questions (two of many examples I could pose):

- When the Republicans in Florida organized political operatives to go to the Broward County Board of Elections and pound on the door as they were doing their recount, and act threateningly, and get in the elevator with election workers and menace them, was that a "gang"?Knowing how you mischaracterize sometimes, I would like to see video of that since I have no knowledge of that.

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.

You want to reserve for yourself the right to use troll language but claim that it's all about the right to one's personal "perspective."Yes, and it's well known that my personal perspective offends you. Everything that proceeds from that fact becomes quite predictable and monotonous. So with that, I'll get back to the topic as people can read for themselves how these "You're a troll" "Am not" "Are too" conversations go as they are all over the political threads.

And yes, I did notice that you moved to your default position of attacking the poster (not the topic of the thread btw) rather than the well said anti-occupy video I posted.

smc

12-03-2011, 02:05 PM

As exasperating as arguing with you is, Tracy, the one thing that makes it easy is that you are so consistent.

Actually what it means is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My posting about ows being gangs was neither extraneous or off-topic. This thread is called Today's Political Landscape. Do you deny that OWS is part of today's political landscape? It is on topic. Does it provoke readers into an emotional response? You assume what I said was to provoke. Let's be honest. Anything I post which you do not agree with will elicit an emotional response by you. Care must then be taken with that definition because it assumes that discussion can be had without an emotional response. As long as any and all opinions of mine that you don't agree with elicits an emotional response from you, your accusations of being a troll are obligatory responses that should be ignored. Unfortunately you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it.

Putting aside that this same thing could be said of you -- "you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it" -- what is most notable in your response is that you provide a definition that includes three elements: "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages". You then go on to defend your post because it is neither "extraneous" nor "off-topic." Of course, what I have said consistently is that your troll-like behavior is of the deliberately INFLAMMATORY variety. I leave the fact that you dealt with the other two, but not that one, for others to interpret (and we have a lot of really smart people reading these posts ;)).

And you're intelligent enough to know that I never said or implied that I was called a troll for my defense of the Constitution.

Nor did I ever suggest that you had done so. But by writing what I quote above, you trick the less-careful reader, or the reader who hasn't followed every bit of the exchange, into thinking that I did. We study that kind of thing in my rhetoric classes. It derives from the Greek Sophists, who were masters of what most accurately should be called rhetorical bullshit.

Wrong. I honestly believe that some people within the occupy protests behave as gangs.

As is typical, once you are called out for your troll-like inflammatory language, you begin to retreat. In Post 114, you wrote: "Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs."

No one reading that can fail to notice that now you say "some people ... behave as gangs," whereas I responded (quite specifically) to your generalization when using the term. So, shall we take this to be your way of admitting that the generalization was wrong?

Knowing how you mischaracterize sometimes, I would like to see video of that since I have no knowledge of that.

I will look for video. Meanwhile, you can search news archives from the time, and add Miami-Dade to the mix. You will find newspaper reports of the Bush campaign hiring a "mob" and of the Justice Department launching an investigation. Of course, once Bush became president, the investigation was quietly dropped. Lest you claim that I am mischaracterizing that last point, historians from all across the political spectrum agree that the Bush Justice Department -- independent of the content of the politics -- was the most politicized Justice Department of the modern era.

By the way, I find it hard to believe you "have no knowledge" of these events. You registered on this site with a birthday that makes you old enough to have been cognizant of what was holding the United States at the edge of its collective seat during that period, and unless your interest in politics is a recent phenomenon, you would have had to shut your eyes and ears to miss the reporting.

Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.

Nice of you to say so. Meanwhile, as for the method of discourse, I refer readers to my response above regarding the clever implication that I may have made up what was widely reported in the media, that was addressed by the Virgina Tea Party leaders, and what became the subject of investigation by law enforcement agencies.

Yes, and it's well known that my personal perspective offends you. Everything that proceeds from that fact becomes quite predictable and monotonous. So with that, I'll get back to the topic as people can read for themselves how these "You're a troll" "Am not" "Are too" conversations go as they are all over the political threads.

And yes, I did notice that you moved to your default position of attacking the poster (not the topic of the thread btw) rather than the well said anti-occupy video I posted.

Your double standard is quite appalling. I hadn't gotten a chance to watch the video (which is nearly 10 minutes long) but have every intention of responding. You disappear for days at a time after posting things and getting responses.

But, by writing what I quote just above, you get to create the illusion that I am either afraid to respond to a post, or that I can't because I don't know what to say, or that I deliberately ignore something, or whatever. It's all of a type, and it's why you get called out on your method time and again.

smc

12-03-2011, 02:15 PM

Here's a different perspective on OWS. You won't like it. You'll call me a troll, and I'll say no, it's called another viewpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJEbWMS_IHE

I will comment extensively on this, but first I want to ask Tracy Coxx a direct question:

Do you, Tracy Coxx, agree with the perspective of Adam Carolla as expressed in this video, including his analysis of what drives the Occupy Wall Street protesters?

TracyCoxx

12-04-2011, 01:01 AM

I will comment extensively on this, but first I want to ask Tracy Coxx a direct question:

Do you, Tracy Coxx, agree with the perspective of Adam Carolla as expressed in this video, including his analysis of what drives the Occupy Wall Street protesters?

I'm not totally blind to corruption on Wall Street & some bankers. I posted this 3 years ago: http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpost.php?p=130083&postcount=1406
Oh yes, republicans screwed up everything and it's all under control now. BO has Corporate America under control now huh... BO's own secretary of treasury, Tim Geithner, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Oh, and btw, Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share over the last year.

There's a new lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Michael Pease. He's joining the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office.

But you don't throw out what drives America's economy over a few bad eggs. You throw the bad eggs out. A lot of what Occupy wants simply baffles me. I cannot see any rational thought behind it. If you follow their goals to their logical ends, you'll further destroy our economy. I do agree with Adam Carolla that a large part of the motivation is envy. Not because I know this to be true, but it's the only thing that explains what looks like irrational behavior. My relatives who empathize with occupists post weird crap on facebook like Black Friday: Buy Nothing Day - an international day of protest against consumerism. I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about? You know we're in a recession right? You know what happens if people stop buying stuff right? I seriously do not understand what motivates these people.

TracyCoxx

12-04-2011, 01:09 AM

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.Nice of you to say so.So what this shows is that you can identify gang behavior, but deny it exists when it applies to some members of the occupy movement.

smc

12-04-2011, 05:34 AM

So what this shows is that you can identify gang behavior, but deny it exists when it applies to some members of the occupy movement.

The conclusion you draw from this particular exchange is so illogical as to be laughable. Your clever use of rhetorical devices from the Sophists has failed you this time, on an epic level.

Further, it's notable that you only respond to one of the many aspects of the post. But it's okay, I get it.

smc

12-04-2011, 06:12 AM

Tracy Coxx, you posted the link to the Adam Carolla rant with the following words:

Here's a different perspective on OWS. You won't like it. You'll call me a troll, and I'll say no, it's called another viewpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJEbWMS_IHE

In other words, you suggest it is a legitimate “viewpoint” in a serious discussion.

In nearly 10 foul-mouthed minutes, Carolla displays that he knows absolutely nothing of the Occupy Wall Street movement, its broad demands and aspirations, nor anything about the real people who make up the majority of its constant activists.

For instance, Carolla states:

“We are now dealing with the first wave of ‘participation-trophy, my-own-fecal-matter-doesn’t-stink, empowered, I-feel-so-fucking-good-about-myself, everybody’s-a-winner, there’s-no-losers,’ we are dealing with the first wave of those fucking assholes. That’s who we are dealing with now.”

He refers to the Millenial generation as a bunch of “self-entitled monsters” and “ass-douches.”

He boils the entire movement down to envy and an unwillingness to play by the rules.” He then compares the “rules” of the Wall Street casino, by implication a level playing field, to the rules followed by someone who runs at a good pace in a legitimate 440-yard race at a track meet.” Specifically, he states:

“What we created is a bunch of self-entitled monsters. People are so far out of it in what they expect and what they think realistic is and the set of rules that pertains to them versus the other guys.”

He ends his rant with a comparison of the Occupy movement to the “terrorists” who “blow up our buildings” because they are envious, resentful, and are ultimately driven by shame, and who then rather than decide to get their own “shit together” decide to “tear that guy’s shit down.”

In fact, some specific and unbaffling demands (even if you don’t agree with them) have emerged from the Occupy movement. Public financing of all U.S. political campaigns, to break the link between the government and the corporations. The overturning of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the “revolving door” with lobbying firms. Elimination of tax loopholes that favor the rich and the corporations. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation. Student loan forgiveness. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.

To suggest that Adam Carolla’s rant and his deliberate ignoring of the real substance of Occupy (whether one agrees with it or not) is part of a legitimate discourse, Tracy Coxx, that it is a legitimate “viewpoint” that might add to the discussion, is an affront to every real discussion about important topics that has ever unfolded on this site.

... But you don't throw out what drives America's economy over a few bad eggs. You throw the bad eggs out. A lot of what Occupy wants simply baffles me. I cannot see any rational thought behind it. If you follow their goals to their logical ends, you'll further destroy our economy. I do agree with Adam Carolla that a large part of the motivation is envy. Not because I know this to be true, but it's the only thing that explains what looks like irrational behavior. My relatives who empathize with occupists post weird crap on facebook like Black Friday: Buy Nothing Day - an international day of protest against consumerism. I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about? You know we're in a recession right? You know what happens if people stop buying stuff right? I seriously do not understand what motivates these people.

I respect that you are baffled by Occupy, but I simply don’t believe you when you write that you “cannot see any rational thought behind” the movement. You’re smarter than that. To post this link to Adam Carolla should be an embarrassment to you.

By the way, for those readers who do not know, Adam Carolla is a TV and radio host who has notoriously attacked ethnic groups and women, and now the entire Millenial generation, with useless name-calling that is inappropriate at best and is highly offensive and that has no place in civil discourse at worst. Here are a few examples:

2003 on the TV show “Loveline”: Carolla stated Hawaiians are “dumb” and “in-bred” and “retarded,” and that they are among the “dumbest people we have.”
2010 on “The Adam Carolla Show”: Carolla, speaking of Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao, cast all sorts of aspersions and then took on the Philippines in general. “They got this and sex tours, that’s all they have over there. Get your shit together Philippines. Jesus Christ. I mean, again, it's fine to be proud of your countrymen. But that's it? That's all you got?” Carolla had to apologize after the office of the Filipino president responded. He said, “I don’t preplan my commentary. I try to be provocative [and] funny but I crossed the line and I'm sorry.” Sounds like a troll, eh?
2011 in one of his podcasts: Carolla, referring to transgender people, asked, “When did we start giving a shit about these people?” Further, he suggested the LGBT designation should be replaced with “YUCK” and that LGBT activists ought to “shut up.”

TracyCoxx

12-04-2011, 11:32 AM

In fact, some specific and unbaffling demands (even if you don?t agree with them) have emerged from the Occupy movement. Public financing of all U.S. political campaigns, to break the link between the government and the corporations.
You do that, and every idiot with a gripe will put themselves on the tax-payers payroll. Instead of 12 or so idiots with at least some experience doing something running for president you'll have hundreds of idiots getting paid by tax payers to rant about the government under the guise of a campaign.

The overturning of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the ?revolving door? with lobbying firms. Elimination of tax loopholes that favor the rich and the corporations. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation. Student loan forgiveness. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
That's all laughable! oh wait, sorry that's not a response is it? (but I do admit it saves time and effort)

1. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United
Careful what you wish for smc. You wanted corporations to be taxed like people. All of a sudden corporations are people now. That means they have rights doesn't it? They have the right to freedom of speech don't they?

2. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the ?revolving door? with lobbying firms
Eliminate perks to public servants, yes. The revolving door is good in a way because it gets experienced people into government rather than career politicians and lawyers who don't really know the industry they are regulating. It has some good points. Minimize the bad points with rules such as mandating that politicians recuse themselves from committees overseeing industries they just came from within 3 or so years.

3. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation.
Obama has tried this many times. It hadn't worked. His last jobs bill failed to pass. Interestingly unemployment went down afterwards without the stimulus package.

4. Student loan forgiveness.
The country can't afford to take on all these student loans. And it sets a bad example to students as they enter adulthood. Lesson: You don't ask for a loan you don't know you can pay off.

5. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
I'm not up on the Glass-Steagall act or its reasons for repeal. I spent some time looking at it, but not sure which way we should go with it.

I'm sure there are some in the occupy movement that have legitimate gripes about the government and certain fat cat people in wall street who ought to be in jail. Fine. I'd like to see some of them in jail myself. But I also see many pro-occupy people who are anti-corporation... regardless of the corporation, and think that rich people ought to get the shit taxed out of them to support their entitlements. That is who Adam Carolla is directing his ranting towards.

By the way, for those readers who do not know, Adam Carolla is a TV and radio host who has notoriously attacked ethnic groups and women, and now the entire Millenial generation, with useless name-calling that is inappropriate at best and is highly offensive and that has no place in civil discourse at worst. Here are a few examples:Just so you know, I have never heard of Adam Carolla before this rant of his. I posted the video because of its criticism of the latest self-empowered, everybody's a winner, no-loser generation.

TracyCoxx

12-04-2011, 11:33 AM

The conclusion you draw from this particular exchange is so illogical as to be laughable. Your clever use of rhetorical devices from the Sophists has failed you this time, on an epic level.Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Example of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

Since you use this method so often, I assume you teach it to your beloved rhetorics class.

smc

12-04-2011, 11:40 AM

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Example of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."

Since you use this method so often, I assume you teach it to your beloved rhetorics class.

Why don't you show some courage and deal with the substance of what I wrote?!

You painted the occupy MOVEMENT as a gang. I countered that your generalization was false and inappropriate. I also do not believe that exercising your legal right to assembly, even if it happens to be on the public sidewalk outside of the private home of a Wall Street banker, represents "gang" behavior. I may not agree with the tactic -- in fact, I think it is a waste of time -- but I will not characterize it as the behavior of a "gang."

The occasions of gangism I cited stand on their own.

Instead of addressing the substance, you try to shift the terrain. It's so transparent as to be laughable, and you can call it whatever rhetorical device you want. Time after time, you reveal your unwillingness to engage in a real discussion when you have no answer to justify your previous provocations.

smc

12-04-2011, 12:08 PM

You do that, and every idiot with a gripe will put themselves on the tax-payers payroll. Instead of 12 or so idiots with at least some experience doing something running for president you'll have hundreds of idiots getting paid by tax payers to rant about the government under the guise of a campaign.

Did you actually spend any time thinking about what you would write in response before your knee jerked? Obviously, as the experience of nearly every industrialized country in the world (and where public financing is the norm), what you fear doesn't happen. Safeguards, reasonably constructed under a system that aims to work and level the playing field, not favor the corporation-humans you consistently defend, ensure that the waste is minimized. I would trade some of my tax money for a less-expensive campaign system that is publicly financed for the Super PACS and other interest groups that can spend unlimited amounts of money, with no transparency, any day of the week.

1. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United
Careful what you wish for smc. You wanted corporations to be taxed like people. All of a sudden corporations are people now. That means they have rights doesn't it? They have the right to freedom of speech don't they?

I never said I wanted "corporations to be taxed like people." But by putting those words in my mouth, you get to make your insipid point about freedom of speech. Seriously, this is your response? I bet you'd be embarrassed to say such a thing on a stage, in a public debate, in front of people, when you can't hide behind the Internet.

To equate the "freedom of speech" of people to corporations is an affront to the Bill of Rights, and you know it.

2. The elimination of special private benefits and perqs to public servants, such as the ?revolving door? with lobbying firms
Eliminate perks to public servants, yes. The revolving door is good in a way because it gets experienced people into government rather than career politicians and lawyers who don't really know the industry they are regulating. It has some good points. Minimize the bad points with rules such as mandating that politicians recuse themselves from committees overseeing industries they just came from within 3 or so years.

Our cemeteries are full of those who paid the ultimate price of having politicians become lobbyists for industry and then being handed the reins of writing regulations for the industries they serve. Ask any worker in the bituminous coal industry of Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and so on.

3. Enactment of comprehensive job-creation legislation.
Obama has tried this many times. It hadn't worked. His last jobs bill failed to pass. Interestingly unemployment went down afterwards without the stimulus package.

I said nothing about Obama's proposed legislation.

I'd like to see your evidence that the implied direct link between failure of his bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate are positively correlated.

In any case, while some Occupiers may support the specific Obama legislation, I would support something more along the lines of what was done during the Great Depression to put people to work doing what needs to be done. You know as well as the next person, Tracy Coxx, that it is government that builds roads, repairs bridges, and generally deals with infrastructure. We need those things done in the United States. You have no answer for why it shouldn't be done, except to defend the phony "job creators" among the wealthy who economists have proven do not create jobs.

4. Student loan forgiveness.
The country can't afford to take on all these student loans. And it sets a bad example to students as they enter adulthood. Lesson: You don't ask for a loan you don't know you can pay off.

Imagine if higher education were free in the United States, like it has largely been in most of the rest of the industrialized world. Imagine the innovative spirit of the United States coupled with a highly educated workforce. Imagine paying for this by not building a few aircraft carriers or suspending a few other wasteful defense contracts.

Oh, my god ... that might be SOCIALISM!!!!

5. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
I'm not up on the Glass-Steagall act or its reasons for repeal. I spent some time looking at it, but not sure which way we should go with it.

This isn't rocket science. The Glass-Steagall Act separated bank types into commercial and investment, and established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), during the Great Depression. Study after study after study has shown that a huge portion of the things banks have done that caused the economic meltdown that began in 2008 are linked directly to the fact that these two banking functions were consolidated into single "too-big-to-fail" banks. The research is easy to find, and "which way we should go with it" should be quite obvious.

As far as I can tell, the only people who are strongly advocating to keep the overturning of Glass-Steagall from 1999 are mega-bankers and the politicians they own.

I'm sure there are some in the occupy movement that have legitimate gripes about the government and certain fat cat people in wall street who ought to be in jail. Fine. I'd like to see some of them in jail myself. But I also see many pro-occupy people who are anti-corporation... regardless of the corporation, and think that rich people ought to get the shit taxed out of them to support their entitlements. That is who Adam Carolla is directing his ranting towards.

Why you would choose to be an apologist for Adam Carolla, who says absolutely nothing in his rant to distinguish one Occupier from another, and who paints the entire Millenial generation with his broad brush, is beyond my comprehension ... unless you really do agree with him.

But more interesting would be to learn who you think ought to be in jail, and for what crimes.

Just so you know, I have never heard of Adam Carolla before this rant of his. I posted the video because of its criticism of the latest self-empowered, everybody's a winner, no-loser generation.

Yeah, well, I would recommend listening again before you again support anything that he says. Do you think his kind of "criticism" is actually productive? What if I just ranted and said the following about every person who works on Wall Street (paraphrasing Carolla):

?We are now dealing with another wave of 'I'm-rich-and-you're-not, my-fecal-matter-smells-better-than-yours, powerful-thanks-to-bought-and-paid-for-politicians-and-regulators, anyone-unemployed-is-a-lazy-fucking-asshole, who-cares-about-losers-who-lose-in-a-rigged-game-on-an-uneven-playing-field, motherfucking-douchebags,' from the lowly accountant at Goldman Sachs all the way up to the CEOS, because if you work for any of these cretins you are no different than the worst of them!"

Would you think that was legitimate criticism, serious and worthy of discussion?

Enoch Root

12-04-2011, 01:13 PM

But I also see many pro-occupy people who are anti-corporation... regardless of the corporation, and think that rich people ought to get the shit taxed out of them to support their entitlements. That is who Adam Carolla is directing his ranting towards.

Right, because a ceo, the board of directors and a smattering of majority shareholders controlling the activities of the majority of workers and sitting atop the gains of such social work as occurs in a corporation, that is by no means a tremendous entitlement. Nope, it's not an entitlement at all for the few at the top to get rich off the work, the impoverishment, of the rest.

The ease with which you defend economic inequality, and the parasitic behavior of the rich that causes such inequality, is galling and infuriating.

tslust

12-04-2011, 06:24 PM

The ease with which you defend economic inequality, and the parasitic behavior of the rich that causes such inequality, is galling and infuriating.

As I've said in another post. The top 1% of wage earners pay about 38% of the Federal (doesn't include state, county, and city) tax burden. While the bottom 43% of wage earners pay no Federal taxes. With about a third get money back from the government (They pay nothing in, but get money out; I guess that makes them tax takers instead of tax payers.:lol:). So, I ask you how those "evil" rich parasites?

tslust

12-04-2011, 06:32 PM

Ohh, BTW while everyone has been going back and forth about the occupiers, this past week the Senate passed a bill allowing the [US] military to arrest and detain (without trial, possibly indefinitely) American citizens in American. Just some food for thought.

paladin68

12-05-2011, 01:28 AM

I have to go teach a class in a few minutes, so I cannot provide a complete "program" right now. Here are a few highlights of what I would like to see enshrined in a constitution, with the society that reflects these points. My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

You DO realize that without the SECOND amendment, all the remaining bill of rights amendments (& the rest, but these are the most important) would rapidly be vaporized, don't you?

tslust

12-05-2011, 05:26 AM

My "bill of rights" would encompass those in the existing First Amendment, but would also include guaranteed rights to a job, healthcare, housing, and education through the university level. Of course, this means organizing society in a much different way to ensure that these rights are granted.

First of all, who's gonna pay for these new rights (healthcare, housing, and education)? If we have the government providing everyone with a job [your right to work], it should be something physically demanding with little ay (like digging ditches for $2 an hour), to provide incentive for getting a better job.
You DO realize that without the SECOND amendment, all the remaining bill of rights amendments (& the rest, but these are the most important) would rapidly be vaporized, don't you?

:respect::respect:I agree 100%

smc

12-05-2011, 06:05 AM

First of all, who's gonna pay for these new rights (healthcare, housing, and education)? If we have the government providing everyone with a job [your right to work], it should be something physically demanding with little ay (like digging ditches for $2 an hour), to provide incentive for getting a better job.

You have to adopt a different way of thinking about this country in order to understand the answer. We grow up in the United States being told that it is "the richest country in the world." That's true. The problem is how those riches are spent. In general, spending protects the interests of the ruling rich, with some social spending at a level deemed minimal to maintain social peace. But imagine a different set of priorities. Do you really think that this country cannot afford a first-class education for free for everyone? Free healthcare? Government-paid jobs doing things that only governments do, such as infrastructure improvements (or, in the U.S. case, maintenance of infrastructure just before the coming collapse of bridges, etc.)?

As for the guarantee to a job, it is a matter of the polity adopting a perspective that puts human needs first, and then enforcing that perspective. I'm no big fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but a quote from a speech he gave in 1932, accepting the renomination as a presidential candidate, speaks volumes: "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings."

Think "outside the box," instead of accepting the narrow box Americans have been put into by what we're taught, beginning in the earliest grades at school, about individualism. It's a ruse. It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, without any illusions that the good fortune of social safety is somehow the destruction of their free will and opportunities.

Oh, and those are all capitalist countries.

TracyCoxx

12-05-2011, 10:18 AM

Did you actually spend any time thinking about what you would write in response before your knee jerked? You wouldn't tolerate this from me, so I won't tolerate it from you.

I never said I wanted "corporations to be taxed like people."Sorry, I got what you said confused with Randolph who said:
Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Seriously, this is your response? I bet you'd be embarrassed to say such a thing on a stage, in a public debate, in front of people, when you can't hide behind the Internet.You wouldn't tolerate this from me, so I won't tolerate it from you.

I said nothing about Obama's proposed legislation.Did I say you did? I said it's already been tried by Obama.

I'd like to see your evidence that the implied direct link between failure of his bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate are positively correlated.Accuse others of what you do. Do not stick words in my mouth. Or perhaps you'd like to quote where I said there's a direct link between failure of Obama's bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate.

In any case, while some Occupiers may support the specific Obama legislation, I would support something more along the lines of what was done during the Great Depression to put people to work doing what needs to be done. You know as well as the next person, Tracy Coxx, that it is government that builds roads, repairs bridges, and generally deals with infrastructure. We need those things done in the United States. You have no answer for why it shouldn't be done, except to defend the phony "job creators" among the wealthy who economists have proven do not create jobs.I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government. Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though.

Imagine if higher education were free in the United States, like it has largely been in most of the rest of the industrialized world. Imagine the innovative spirit of the United States coupled with a highly educated workforce. Imagine paying for this by not building a few aircraft carriers or suspending a few other wasteful defense contracts.

Oh, my god ... that might be SOCIALISM!!!!I don't care if education is free as long as it's quality education. That would be great. But face facts. We can't afford it. And get real, we're not going to do it by dropping our defenses.

Why you would choose to be an apologist for Adam Carolla, who says absolutely nothing in his rant to distinguish one Occupier from another, and who paints the entire Millenial generation with his broad brush, is beyond my comprehension ... unless you really do agree with him.I'm not an apologist for Adam Carolla. If I were I'd defend him against all the other crap you say he says.

Yeah, well, I would recommend listening again before you again support anything that he says. Do you think his kind of "criticism" is actually productive? What if I just ranted and said the following about every person who works on Wall StreetOr what if you wrote like you always write on here. :turnoff:

By the way, to others reading this exchange, I would like to remind everyone, and I know I speak for smc as well on this, remember forum rule 4: Do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Do not threaten or put down other users. We strive to make this a friendly place.

TracyCoxx

12-05-2011, 10:25 AM

Right, because a ceo, the board of directors and a smattering of majority shareholders controlling the activities of the majority of workers and sitting atop the gains of such social work as occurs in a corporation, that is by no means a tremendous entitlement. Nope, it's not an entitlement at all for the few at the top to get rich off the work, the impoverishment, of the rest.They aren't getting rich off of me. Why are they getting rich off of you?

TracyCoxx

12-05-2011, 10:36 AM

You DO realize that without the SECOND amendment, all the remaining bill of rights amendments (& the rest, but these are the most important) would rapidly be vaporized, don't you?

Do you know who you're talking to?

I am for a transformation of the United States. The Constitution serves the interests of that transformation only in degrees, and I would like to see it replaced.

parr

12-05-2011, 10:40 AM

Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs. They can't see the big picture in our own country... you expect them to notice the world economy?

It will alway's be Bush's fault, don't you know that Tracy. :rolleyes:

parr

12-05-2011, 10:59 AM

smc

12-05-2011, 11:08 AM

You wouldn't tolerate this from me, so I won't tolerate it from you.

You're wrong about that. Say it to me, any time, and I will defend what I state and would challenge you to meet me in public, on a stage, and even come to where you are to wipe the floor with you in an honest debate

Did I say you did? I said it's already been tried by Obama.

Now, you cleverly implied it. As you well know, there is both denotation AND connotation in language.

Accuse others of what you do. Do not stick words in my mouth. Or perhaps you'd like to quote where I said there's a direct link between failure of Obama's bill to pass and a decrease in the unemployment rate.

See my answer just above. You do this all the time, Tracy, and it's transparent to everyone who reads your posts. It's okay to do it -- that is, to make implications -- but when you have no argument to back them up why can't you just drop it instead of playing the "I-didn't-say-those-exact-words-and-I-dare-you-to-quote-me" game? Wouldn't a real discussion be better served by either backing up your statements or admitting that you can't?

I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government. Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though.

Throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there's waste. We should focus on doing these things correctly, not on NOT doing them because our government doesn't do the right things. But I realize that if you don't want to do the hard work in a discussion of figuring out how to find common ground and consensus and actually do something constructive, it's a lot easier to write your last sentence just above.

I don't care if education is free as long as it's quality education. That would be great. But face facts. We can't afford it. And get real, we're not going to do it by dropping our defenses.

We could drop the "offense" part and do just find. But in any case, we have the money to provide free education otherwise, too. It's all about priorities and whether profits for corporations and an uneven playing field for the rich come first.

I'm not an apologist for Adam Carolla. If I were I'd defend him against all the other crap you say he says.

Nice dodge. An apologist is someone makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, and so on. You legitimize Carolla's rant as reasonable discourse in the way you presented it here to the Forum, thus functioning as an apologist for it. My statement had nothing to do with anything else he has said. As is so often the case, though, you already knew that.

Or what if you wrote like you always write on here. :turnoff:

By the way, to others reading this exchange, I would like to remind everyone, and I know I speak for smc as well on this, remember forum rule 4: Do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Do not threaten or put down other users. We strive to make this a friendly place.

And now, dear readers who may be following this exchange, we come to the part where Tracy Coxx whines that he has been attacked personally. The last defense of Tracy Coxx is to reproduce Forum Rule 4 at the end of a discussion when Tracy Coxx cannot debate on the substance of issues. Spend a few minutes finding all the other times Tracy Coxx has done this, and you will get a real education in what the opposite of constructive discourse is all about.

tslust

12-05-2011, 05:30 PM

You have to adopt a different way of thinking about this country in order to understand the answer. We grow up in the United States being told that it is "the richest country in the world." That's true. The problem is how those riches are spent. In general, spending protects the interests of the ruling rich, with some social spending at a level deemed minimal to maintain social peace. But imagine a different set of priorities. Do you really think that this country cannot afford a first-class education for free for everyone? Free healthcare? Government-paid jobs doing things that only governments do, such as infrastructure improvements (or, in the U.S. case, maintenance of infrastructure just before the coming collapse of bridges, etc.)?

As for the guarantee to a job, it is a matter of the polity adopting a perspective that puts human needs first, and then enforcing that perspective. I'm no big fan of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but a quote from a speech he gave in 1932, accepting the renomination as a presidential candidate, speaks volumes: "We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings."

Think "outside the box," instead of accepting the narrow box Americans have been put into by what we're taught, beginning in the earliest grades at school, about individualism. It's a ruse. It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, without any illusions that the good fortune of social safety is somehow the destruction of their free will and opportunities.

Oh, and those are all capitalist countries.

I onderstand what you have to say, and see value in it. However, you must remember that I am a strong believer in State's Rights (thanks to my dad), I would like to see the Federal government scaled back to its constitutional limits.

TracyCoxx

12-06-2011, 12:27 AM

You're wrong about that. Say it to me, any time, and I will defend what I state and would challenge you to meet me in public, on a stage, and even come to where you are to wipe the floor with you in an honest debateI don't know how you are in real life, but I have enough experience on here to know what happens on the forum.

Now, you cleverly implied it. As you well know, there is both denotation AND connotation in language.No. You are imagining things. I said what I said and that is what I meant, which is only that it has already been tried by Obama. Again you're debating what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm saying.

See my answer just above. You do this all the time, Tracy, and it's transparent to everyone who reads your posts. It's okay to do it -- that is, to make implications -- but when you have no argument to back them up why can't you just drop it instead of playing the "I-didn't-say-those-exact-words-and-I-dare-you-to-quote-me" game? Wouldn't a real discussion be better served by either backing up your statements or admitting that you can't?And there you go again.

I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government. Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though.Throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there's waste. We should focus on doing these things correctly, not on NOT doing them because our government doesn't do the right things. But I realize that if you don't want to do the hard work in a discussion of figuring out how to find common ground and consensus and actually do something constructive, it's a lot easier to write your last sentence just above.And yet again, you're debating what you THINK I'm saying. I explicitly said "I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government." Followed by "Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though." From this you conclude that I don't want these projects to be done by the government when I said the opposite. Yes there's waste, but I never said I wanted the government to stop working on infrastructure. It's so exasperating debating not only the actual issues that come up on this forum, but defending myself against what you imagine I'm saying as well.

We could drop the "offense" part and do just find. But in any case, we have the money to provide free education otherwise, too. It's all about priorities and whether profits for corporations and an uneven playing field for the rich come first.Uh, no we don't. We're over $14 trillion in debt.

Nice dodge. An apologist is someone makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, and so on. You legitimize Carolla's rant ...But that's not what you said. You said I am an Adam Carolla apologist after informing everyone about what else Adam supports, not an apologist for the one rant I posted.

And now, dear readers who may be following this exchange, we come to the part where Tracy Coxx whines that he has been attacked personally. The last defense of Tracy Coxx is to reproduce Forum Rule 4 at the end of a discussion when Tracy Coxx cannot debate on the substance of issues.What's to debate here? There's either your diatribes that are devoid of any real content or your debating your illusions of what I'm saying.

transjen

12-06-2011, 01:04 AM

Uh, no we don't. We're over $14 trillion in debt..

Thankyou W, as 1/3 of that is from his wonderful taxcuts for the the super rich
Then W put in two unfunded wars
Remember when W and his Vice said the Iraq war will be paid for out of oil profits
Iraq hasn't paid one damn dime

We can't afford to rebulid US roads or fix our schools but we can afford to rebulid Iraq WTF?????
Funny how the GOP never gives a damn about debt when they are in the White house they only start screaming about it when a Dem is in the white house they never said diddly about the debt Reagan ran up with his trickle down they only cared when Clinton was in office
When W stole the Whitehouse he was given a balanced budget and a surplus and with in his first three months both were long gone and the GOP said nothing as he started a massive debit the GOP didn't say diddly until Obama got the Whitehouse and for his whole term that's all they scream about and yet they refuse to end the Bush tax cuts which would do away with a big chunk of it
If they were serious about the debt the tax cuts would have been the first to go
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

smc

12-06-2011, 08:06 AM

I don't know how you are in real life, but I have enough experience on here to know what happens on the forum.

No. You are imagining things. I said what I said and that is what I meant, which is only that it has already been tried by Obama. Again you're debating what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm saying.

And there you go again.

And yet again, you're debating what you THINK I'm saying. I explicitly said "I never said those jobs shouldn't be done. And I'm fine with them being done by the government." Followed by "Billion dollar mass transit projects like in my town that only go 7 miles is a waste though." From this you conclude that I don't want these projects to be done by the government when I said the opposite. Yes there's waste, but I never said I wanted the government to stop working on infrastructure. It's so exasperating debating not only the actual issues that come up on this forum, but defending myself against what you imagine I'm saying as well.

I stand by what I wrote about implications, denotations, and connotations. Otherwise, I would have to accept that on the one hand you are the only person I've ever come across who never, ever implies or connotes in communication, while on the other hand you partake in using the same approaches to language that other humans use. And that doesn't fit with anything I know about communication or anything I have ever encountered in all my years of dealing professionally with communication.

I'll let others to draw their own conclusions.

Uh, no we don't. We're over $14 trillion in debt.

Debt is restructured all the time. It would be easy enough for the United States to nationalize the banks to whom debt is owed and deal with it that way ... for just one example of how it could be handled. Extending your logic, we should spend no money until everything is balanced. Good luck with that.

But that's not what you said. You said I am an Adam Carolla apologist after informing everyone about what else Adam supports, not an apologist for the one rant I posted.

Nice try, Tracy. I presume you count on others not following the exchange as closely so that you can dissemble in this manner.

I wrote the following:

"Why you would choose to be an apologist for Adam Carolla, who says absolutely nothing in his rant to distinguish one Occupier from another, and who paints the entire Millenial generation with his broad brush, is beyond my comprehension ... unless you really do agree with him."

My charge was specifically about the rant, as you well know. The information about other things Carolla has done/said was introduced quite specifically as follows:

"By the way, for those readers who do not know, Adam Carolla is a TV and radio host who has notoriously attacked ethnic groups and women, and now the entire Millenial generation, with useless name-calling that is inappropriate at best and is highly offensive and that has no place in civil discourse at worst. Here are a few examples: ..."

That is, it was there to put him in context for everyone else. I did not make an assumption that you knew anything else about him, nor did I make an assumption that you were his best friend, nor did I assume anything in between about your connection to Adam Carolla.

What's to debate here? There's either your diatribes that are devoid of any real content or your debating your illusions of what I'm saying.

I have nothing more to say about this rule that you keep bringing up. If you think I violate it and insult you directly rather than attacking your political positions and the method in which you dissemble to present them, contact the site owner as you have done in the past. We'll take it from there.

TracyCoxx

12-06-2011, 09:59 AM

Debt is restructured all the time. It would be easy enough for the United States to nationalize the banks to whom debt is owed and deal with it that way ... for just one example of how it could be handled. Extending your logic, we should spend no money until everything is balanced. Good luck with that.And good luck to you with your assumption that I would like the US to spend nothing until the debt is payed off. As usual you mischaracterize your opponents arguments to something ridiculous and try and claim victory over this artificial position. Rock on with that strawman argument smc.

I'll let others to draw their own conclusions.Over the time you and I have been debating (what is it, a decade? seems like it...) they have drawn their own conclusions and I'm hearing support from them. Of course most of them won't say anything here. They're at least smart enough to know better.

GRH

12-06-2011, 12:51 PM

Enoch Root

12-06-2011, 02:12 PM

And as I have previously replied in another post...That is utter and complete bullshit. The VAST majority of people DO pay federal taxes in the form of regressive payroll taxes. Not everyone has income tax liability...That is true. But the right likes to talk about the tax burden the wealthy pay...They like to leave out the fact that the top percentage of earners own the VAST majority of the wealth in the US. Given that the top 20% of earners own 80% of the nation's wealth, I have absolutely no problem with them paying a higher share of the tax burden. They wealthy already own the country...It's high time they start paying for it.

Could you do me the honor of reposting that post of yours here GRH? I knew you had responded to tslust in the past but I could not find it since I remembered no specific wording and I have not seen you active in a long time.

I meant to respond to tslust's assertion with something akin to your comment about "top wage earners owning 80% of the nation's wealth," alas Tracy got up to his old tricks again and I wanted to observe how that went down first. I guess I may as well post that soon.

TracyCoxx

12-06-2011, 07:42 PM

Given that the top 20% of earners own 80% of the nation's wealth, I have absolutely no problem with them paying a higher share of the tax burden.In light of this, those that don't pay taxes shouldn't expect much of a say in how the country is run. That's one reason I'd like to see a flat tax so everyone has skin in the game.

TracyCoxx

12-06-2011, 07:44 PM

They aren't getting rich off of me. Why are they getting rich off of you?

Enoch Root???

tslust

12-06-2011, 08:35 PM

In light of this, those that don't pay taxes shouldn't expect much of a say in how the country is run. That's one reason I'd like to see a flat tax so everyone has skin in the game.

:respect:You took the words right out of my mouth.

I too favor the idea of a flat tax. Be it either a swinging percentage based on tax brackets, or a fixed percentage. According to my uncle's idea, the government would take in at least 185 billion dollars each mnoth.

Taxing the rich is not an answer, cutting spending is! The rate the government is spending money (over 300 billion a month) is unsustainable. It doesn't matter how much taxes would be hypothetical raised, it won't ever be enough.

GRH

12-06-2011, 09:41 PM

In light of this, those that don't pay taxes shouldn't expect much of a say in how the country is run. That's one reason I'd like to see a flat tax so everyone has skin in the game.

Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't "weight" the value of a vote based on the income of the person casting the vote. Otherwise, we might as roll over and hand the wealthy the small portion of the country they don't already own. They've already rigged the game to funnel as much wealth away from the middle class and towards them...Why not remove the few safeguards that are left in our democracy? We'll just correlate the value of a vote to the income of the person casting it.

You do realize that the wealthy pay lower "effective" tax rates (on their total taxable income) than most middle class earners? Middle class earners pay a full 6.2% for Social Security/FICA tax...This is on earnings up to $106,000 (which the vast majority of earners make below this). Meanwhile, the uber-wealthy pay the same 6.2% on their first $106,000 in earnings. Any income beyond this cap isn't taxed. So FICA taxes are regressive in nature. To a family making the median income of $50,000/year, they are paying in excess of 6% FICA tax. Meanwhile, if you have a millionaire bringing in $1,060,000 in income, this millionaire is only paying a 0.6% FICA tax.

On marginal tax rates, the wealthy do have a higher tax burden. However, to suggest that they pay "higher taxes" doesn't really elaborate on the way that marginal taxes work. EVERYONE pays the same tax rate on their first dollars of earnings. If I make $10,000 and a millionaire makes $1 billion/year-- guess what, we BOTH pay the exact same rate of taxes on those first $10,000 of earnings. If we each make an additional $50,000 of earnings...Guess what? The millionaire and I BOTH pay the exact same income tax liability on those dollars of earnings. It is only when the millionaire is making money in the next tax bracket (a bracket that I don't fall into because I'm poor) that they begin paying taxes at a higher rate. But technically, everyone pays the same tax liability on earnings. We already have a "flat tax" in this respect. The right likes us to believe that the poor "job creators" are taxed at 30+% on their TOTAL earnings-- this is simply not the case. The one caveat is that there are various deductions, loopholes, etc. which skew income tax liability for lower-income earners.

Now, the millionaire and billionaires do pay higher marginal tax rates. However, given that these individuals often receive substantial portions of their income through capital gains, dividends, carried interest, and/or stock options, they end up paying substantially less tax liability on these favored types of income. This is the reason that Warren Buffet has a lower effective tax liability than his secretary. I'm sorry, but for the second wealthiest American to have a lower effective tax burden than the secretary of his company suggests a deeply flawed tax system. And any attempt to make a "fair" or "flat" tax is merely a disguised way of shifting more of the tax burden to the poor (and by default, move tax liability away from the wealthy). And I think George Bush Sr. said it best regarding the old trickle-down theories of Reaganomics-- it's nothing but voodoo economics.

smc

12-07-2011, 07:30 AM

And good luck to you with your assumption that I would like the US to spend nothing until the debt is payed off. As usual you mischaracterize your opponents arguments to something ridiculous and try and claim victory over this artificial position. Rock on with that strawman argument smc.

As usual, you accuse me of what you do. I didn't mischaracterize YOUR position. I extended your logic on my own.

Over the time you and I have been debating (what is it, a decade? seems like it...) they have drawn their own conclusions and I'm hearing support from them. Of course most of them won't say anything here. They're at least smart enough to know better.

I get between 100 and 200 PMs a day supporting my positions in our exchanges. :yes:

Oh, see how easy it is on the Internet to claim anything.

But I do give you credit for the last sentence, and its implication. Of course, as we know from an earlier post, your words never have implication or connotation.

Why don't you tell us precisely what you would cut to balance the budget, and how much.

Enoch Root

12-07-2011, 11:09 AM

As I've said in another post. The top 1% of wage earners pay about 38% of the Federal (doesn't include state, county, and city) tax burden. While the bottom 43% of wage earners pay no Federal taxes. With about a third get money back from the government (They pay nothing in, but get money out; I guess that makes them tax takers instead of tax payers.:lol:). So, I ask you how those "evil" rich parasites?

I spoke of the wealth created by workers as they produce some good or service: a car, a house, plumbing, tech assistance, computers and their requisite components, etc. I spoke of these people and yet you retreated to that area the right wing so dearly loves: to throw out some percent, which usually seems to be 50 or above, of income tax paid by the ?ruling rich,? as smc terms them, as if this were proof they somehow do not take from the wealth created by workers. But if they do not take, that is, if they do not act as a parasite upon the working class, upon the majority of the population of any one country?by now the world?then how do you think they get the wealth they have? But you ignore this and focus instead on taxes and you commit the mistake of equating the wealth these people have, these people who make anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars an hour, with the wealth?or rather, lack of wealth?of the working class.

GRH once said something?and has now reiterated?along the lines of: they have 70 percent of the wealth so it is only proper they be taxed that high. You ignore this and focus instead on taxes because, after all, if the government takes it?s bad, even if the money goes to social programs that benefit the population, but if a corporation does it it?s as American as apple pie?hell! It?s good and proper and gosh darn it it?s sanctioned by thine Founding Fathers. Yeehaw.

Of course, your post ignores how much these people who ?pay no taxes? actually make and it ignores whatever other taxes may exist which the population is subject to and it ignores whatever tax evasion the ruling class gets up to and it ignores whatever rules are in place which said class employs most heartily so they end up paying little or no taxes at all, like that whole General Electric thing from a while back.

tslust

12-07-2011, 05:36 PM

...that area the right wing so dearly loves: to throw out some percent, which usually seems to be 50 or above, of income tax paid by the ?ruling rich,? as smc terms them

Of course, your post ignores how much these people who ?pay no taxes? actually make and it ignores whatever other taxes may exist which the population is subject to and it ignores whatever tax evasion the ruling class gets up to and it ignores whatever rules are in place which said class employs most heartily so they end up paying little or no taxes at all, like that whole General Electric thing from a while back.

FYI, i didn't just pull that number out of my ass! In the original post I refered to, (back in July) I stated that different sources put it at different numbers. I simply averaged it out.

I was speaking of the Federal tax burden. I wasn't speaking of State, county, city, and sales tax. Furthermore, IDGAF how much money, wealth, property, pay someone does or does not have. How is any person, or (I guess I should say) a group of people "entitled" to partake of another's wealth?

smc

12-07-2011, 05:53 PM

FYI, i didn't just pull that number out of my ass! In the original post I refered to, (back in July) I stated that different sources put it at different numbers. I simply averaged it out.

I was speaking of the Federal tax burden. I wasn't speaking of State, county, city, and sales tax. Furthermore, IDGAF how much money, wealth, property, pay someone does or does not have. How is any person, or (I guess I should say) a group of people "entitled" to partake of another's wealth?

Isn't the very concept of taxation to fund public goods, regardless of the level of taxation, based on taking wealth from individuals to distribute it (in the form of how it is spent) to the group?

tslust

12-07-2011, 06:07 PM

Isn't the very concept of taxation to fund public goods, regardless of the level of taxation, based on taking wealth from individuals to distribute it (in the form of how it is spent) to the group?

Not in those terms. Taxation is "a burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government". The government may choose to spend some of this money on social benefits.

smc

12-07-2011, 06:23 PM

Not in those terms. Taxation is "a burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government". The government may choose to spend some of this money on social benefits.

I was referring to taxation for social goods, as my post stated. The issue is with how it's spent, not that it's collected per se.

And I never used the term "social benefits." I don't think there is a social benefit to much of how the government spends our tax money, but the government does not simply collect the money to fill the coffers of individuals, as was the case with the English monarchy when the United States was a colony. (And before the shitstorm begins, I am not unaware that individuals can enrich themselves at the government teat. I mean that my tax dollars don't go directly into the account of some oligarch.)

transjen

12-07-2011, 06:26 PM

The GOP are saying the DEMS are redistrubing wealth by taxing the rich and giveing it to the poor who are poor because they are lazy
While the GOPS beloved trickle down is a reverse Robin Hood by taking from the poor to give the rich
And does what they claim the DEMS are doing but in the other direction
And before you start yelling for a fair flat tax which is not fair as the super rich get another windfall by a even lower rate and those on the bottom recieve a higher rate
Perry's 20% flat rate lowers the rate for the rich and raises the amount for those on the bottom since those on the bottom pay no wheres near 20 % currently
So explain how a flat tax is fair, it shifts the burden to those on the bottom and a windfall to those on the top
Why do you think that systems is wanted by Steve Forbs and the Donald
Flat tax is another :coupling: from the GOP to the 89% not on top

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Enoch Root

12-08-2011, 01:06 PM

The Prison Industrial Complex and Racism:

http://prisondivestment.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/wall-street-and-the-criminalization-of-immigrants/

paladin68

12-09-2011, 12:50 AM

I onderstand what you have to say, and see value in it. However, you must remember that I am a strong believer in State's Rights (thanks to my dad), I would like to see the Federal government scaled back to its constitutional limits.

Yes, it appears that the 10th amendment is being ignored, especially by the current administration.

paladin68

12-09-2011, 02:14 AM

... Think "outside the box," instead of accepting the narrow box Americans have been put into by what we're taught, beginning in the earliest grades at school, about individualism. It's a ruse. It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, without any illusions that the good fortune of social safety is somehow the destruction of their free will and opportunities...

What countries should we look to here? Europe? They're about to sink under their own weight of even worse fiscal mismanagement than we are going through. Europe's track record in the industrial revolution was 1: quickly eclipsed by the US and 2: was built largely on the backs of the working poor. Then, after nearly wiping itself out in The Great War, Russia went to communisim / stalinism & Germany, AFTER disarming its citizens (done by the Prussian elitists during the Weimar years) fell into nazism. France & Britain buried their heads in the sand and the resulting 20 year rematch was even worse. Are you also suggesting the eurozone's unemployment rate is lower than that of the US??? I haven't checked on this, but I would be surprised. I checked, It's 10.3% worse, as i expected.

I don't think we need to look to Europe.

Well, what about Japan? Sure. Japan, who's emperor was until 2 Sep 1945 was a Divine Being, has been in recession for well over 20 years straight.

There isn't much left, you're not suggesting China, are you???

No, we need to fix our own house and a good start is a change in the administration next year.

smc

12-09-2011, 08:25 AM

What countries should we look to here? Europe? They're about to sink under their own weight of even worse fiscal mismanagement than we are going through. Europe's track record in the industrial revolution was 1: quickly eclipsed by the US and 2: was built largely on the backs of the working poor. Then, after nearly wiping itself out in The Great War, Russia went to communisim / stalinism & Germany, AFTER disarming its citizens (done by the Prussian elitists during the Weimar years) fell into nazism. France & Britain buried their heads in the sand and the resulting 20 year rematch was even worse. Are you also suggesting the eurozone's unemployment rate is lower than that of the US??? I haven't checked on this, but I would be surprised. I checked, It's 10.3% worse, as i expected.

I don't think we need to look to Europe.

Well, what about Japan? Sure. Japan, who's emperor was until 2 Sep 1945 was a Divine Being, has been in recession for well over 20 years straight.

There isn't much left, you're not suggesting China, are you???

No, we need to fix our own house and a good start is a change in the administration next year.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was quite clear about the social safety net. I said nothing about the European unemployment rate. Europe's problems are the result of global capital competition, not overspending on what makes Europeans have a better social safety net than the United States by orders of magnitude, the result of a social solidarity that Americans have been quite deliberately taught (falsely, to serve the interests of the ruling rich) is some kind of affront to their "liberty."

You presume that recessions, etc., are caused by social spending, and point to your examples. But something precedes those recessions, which is putting profits of corporations ahead of human needs and organizing government around ensuring that priority.

Finally, things like the Emperor of Japan being a Diving Being, etc., are clearly red herrings in a serious debate. Such an approach is transparently an attempt not to discuss the core of my post.

paladin68

12-09-2011, 06:13 PM

Don't put words in my mouth. I was quite clear about the social safety net. I said nothing about the European unemployment rate. Europe's problems are the result of global capital competition, not overspending on what makes Europeans have a better social safety net than the United States by orders of magnitude, the result of a social solidarity that Americans have been quite deliberately taught (falsely, to serve the interests of the ruling rich) is some kind of affront to their "liberty."

You presume that recessions, etc., are caused by social spending, and point to your examples. But something precedes those recessions, which is putting profits of corporations ahead of human needs and organizing government around ensuring that priority.

Finally, things like the Emperor of Japan being a Diving Being, etc., are clearly red herrings in a serious debate. Such an approach is transparently an attempt not to discuss the core of my post.

Europe's social safety net will disintegrate if they continue to spend themselves into disaster.

You state you didn't say anything about the European unemployment rate, yet this phrase is an allusion to that: "and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages".

Europe (especially western Europe, but eastern Europe as well) ) owes its existence and relative problem free past 65 years to the United States. And I'm sure the 30-40 million who died at the hands of tyranny in WW2 would agree.

smc

12-09-2011, 07:00 PM

Europe's social safety net will disintegrate if they continue to spend themselves into disaster.

You state you didn't say anything about the European unemployment rate, yet this phrase is an allusion to that: "and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages".

Europe (especially western Europe, but eastern Europe as well) ) owes its existence and relative problem free past 65 years to the United States. And I'm sure the 30-40 million who died at the hands of tyranny in WW2 would agree.

You seem to ignore whatever points in a post will not conveniently fit into your preconceived notions of the world. The first sentence of your post reveals that to be true, because you have ignored the essence of all of my posts in this particular exchange, which have to do with changing the paradigm. And if that happens, the spending disaster to which you refer would not even be a concern.

But I understand how these things work. Heaven forbid we should think differently than the ways in which we have been taught in American schools, that is, the asinine notion that we are all better off when are in it for ourselves.

paladin68

12-09-2011, 08:45 PM

smc

12-10-2011, 07:58 AM

Aren't you part of the American school system?

This refers to Europe, does it not:
"It's designed to keep Americans from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good that explains why people elsewhere are happier, healthier, and more gainfully engaged in work in larger percentages, "

Well, it's not a recipe for success. Western Europe has been under the American Nuclear Umbrella for the past 65 years, and have not had to spend anywhere near as much on their own defense as the US, yet they are still on the brink of fiscal disaster due to excessive unsustainable spending. Your utopia is going broke faster then the US.

They have had a greater proportion of their national wealth to make things better, yet they are still on the edge or a disaster. And you want the US to do gown that same road???

I teach at a university, and I don't teach that crap.

I want the United States to go down a road that puts people before profits, period. You continue to ignore what I clearly wrote to make your points. Your comparisons to Europe are not the comparisons I made, and they are irrelevant to my thinking-outside-the-box point earlier on. I did not say we should be Europe, only that more social spending is better. And I stand by that. Sure, under capitalism, where the entire trajectory is to greater and greater exploitation, it is a recipe for disaster if one country tries to buck the trend in a global economy. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I believe you are smart enough to know that. But it's okay: if trying to ghost ideas and making it seem as if they're mine is all you've got, have at it.

TracyCoxx

12-10-2011, 12:03 PM

I want the United States to go down a road that puts people before profits, period. You continue to ignore what I clearly wrote to make your points. Your comparisons to Europe are not the comparisons I made, and they are irrelevant to my thinking-outside-the-box point earlier on. I did not say we should be Europe, only that more social spending is better.

When you say put people before profits, do you mean back rubs? Those can be free. Are you talking about services to people that cost little or nothing? Because without profits you can't offer much. Paladin was talking about how Europe can afford to devote more of their resources towards social programs because we take on a lot of their defense burden. Yet even so, they are going under. Whether you're talking about Europe or not, this is an example of what happens.

If not Europe, which country or countries should we emulate?

smc

12-10-2011, 01:08 PM

When you say put people before profits, do you mean back rubs? Those can be free. Are you talking about services to people that cost little or nothing? Because without profits you can't offer much. Paladin was talking about how Europe can afford to devote more of their resources towards social programs because we take on a lot of their defense burden. Yet even so, they are going under. Whether you're talking about Europe or not, this is an example of what happens.

If not Europe, which country or countries should we emulate?

I wonder whether, when you make a sarcastically banal comment such as "do you mean back rubs?," you sit back and stare at the computer screen, beaming with pride at how clever you are. But in fact such a comment only solidifies the view that most of the positions you take on this site reveal a coldheartedness that goes along with your general lack of regard for the great mass of people who are less fortunate than you through no fault of their own, but because of a system that relegates them to homelessness, joblessness, hunger, and so on.

Nevertheless, I will point out that European countries enjoyed far greater social protections for their citizens long before the United States became the source of their defense "budgets." Further, I have not suggested emulating any specific country or countries, only pointed to the fact of greater social safety in certain countries. I will not fall into your trap, and that of paladin68, to name countries to emulate. I call it a trap, because just as you are sitting back enjoying your banal sarcasm, I have no doubt you are desperately hoping I will mention Cuba or some other place so that you can then change the substance of the discussion.

No, there is no country to emulate, only an idea. A very powerful idea. It is that society can be organized to put human needs first. Profits are not necessary. Those of you who worship the market, the false god that your high priests claim can deliver every good thing to the mass of people but reveals itself time and again to be a tool of exploitation and enrichment of the few, can smugly call me a communist or whatever you want. The good news is that you don't get to decide how things will turn out. It will be either barbarism, as the decrepit system you so love destroys people and the earth, or it will be something we haven't seen before. And then you will have to make a choice of whether to throw your lot in with those whose interests are actually closest to yours.

Enoch Root

12-10-2011, 02:10 PM

They aren't getting rich off of me. Why are they getting rich off of you?

Tracy, please explain to me how you believe wealth in Wall Street to be generated.

Enoch Root

12-10-2011, 02:11 PM

I believe this would be called, The Corporatization of Education:

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/the-regency/

TracyCoxx

12-10-2011, 07:36 PM

I wonder whether, when you make a sarcastically banal comment such as "do you mean back rubs?," you sit back and stare at the computer screen, beaming with pride at how clever you are.Of course.

No, there is no country to emulate, only an idea. A very powerful idea. It is that society can be organized to put human needs first. Profits are not necessary.Yes, obviously quite powerful. Yet, as there is no country to emulate, apparently no country has been able to pull it off. Maybe the need for profits are harder to ignore than you think.

TracyCoxx

12-10-2011, 07:37 PM

Tracy, please explain to me how you believe wealth in Wall Street to be generated.

Certainly not from my pocket book lol. Ok, they're getting rich off the work of several people, as well as off their own work. But I can't think of any CEOs getting rich off of my work. At least not any that aren't putting in a hell of a lot of work themselves. What I should have said was how are they impoverishing you, because they aren't impoverishing me.

paladin68

12-10-2011, 11:29 PM

...I did not say we should be Europe, only that more social spending is better. And I stand by that. ....

So how do you reconcile the above with this from earlier on:

"...from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good..."

When you are referring to "most of the world's other industrialized nations" you are referring to europe, and look where all that good social spending has landed them.

smc

12-12-2011, 06:25 AM

So how do you reconcile the above with this from earlier on:

"...from adopting the kind of social solidarity that created, in most of the world's other industrialized nations, a communal sense of social good..."

When you are referring to "most of the world's other industrialized nations" you are referring to europe, and look where all that good social spending has landed them.

The operative words in what you quoted are "the kind of social solidarity that created ... a communal sense of social good."

That Europe has gotten closest is a good example. I will make it clear for the last time: whether I did not write specifically that I do not seek to emulate European social democracies exactly in my earlier writing, I state it now. I am talking about something that transcends even Europe.

Happy now?

smc

12-12-2011, 06:28 AM

Yes, obviously quite powerful. Yet, as there is no country to emulate, apparently no country has been able to pull it off. Maybe the need for profits are harder to ignore than you think.

Maybe the need for the profiteers to resort to anything in their arsenal to ensure that their outlived class doesn't get pushed into the dustbin of history is greater than you think, and it takes longer.

Enoch Root

12-15-2011, 11:35 AM

Certainly not from my pocket book lol. Ok, they're getting rich off the work of several people, as well as off their own work. But I can't think of any CEOs getting rich off of my work. At least not any that aren't putting in a hell of a lot of work themselves. What I should have said was how are they impoverishing you, because they aren't impoverishing me.

This is a start but it does not address my request.

smc

12-15-2011, 11:42 AM

They aren't getting rich off of me. Why are they getting rich off of you?

When a Wall Street investment bank is bailed out, lent money by the Fed at 0% interest ostensibly to reinvest in the economy, and then does nothing productive -- and yet gives its CEO and others million-dollar-plus bonuses at the end of the year -- do you think that CEO might be getting rich off YOU ... even just a little bit?

transjen

12-21-2011, 05:24 PM

What we need today is another Huey, this was a man before his time he was fighting the 1 percenters back in the 30s
If we had someonr like him today Rush and Ann would have blown a gasket by now and i know out very own Tracy will also blow a gasket after seeing this
http://youtu.be/hphgHi6FD8k

:cool: Santas naughty elf Jen

Enoch Root

12-24-2011, 11:44 AM

Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SR8Y7tO8yrI

paladin68

12-25-2011, 01:10 AM

paladin68

12-25-2011, 01:11 AM

When a Wall Street investment bank is bailed out, lent money by the Fed at 0% interest ostensibly to reinvest in the economy, and then does nothing productive -- and yet gives its CEO and others million-dollar-plus bonuses at the end of the year -- do you think that CEO might be getting rich off YOU ... even just a little bit?

Those assholes need prison time instead of bonuses...

TracyCoxx

12-26-2011, 12:15 AM

When a Wall Street investment bank is bailed out, lent money by the Fed at 0% interest ostensibly to reinvest in the economy, and then does nothing productive -- and yet gives its CEO and others million-dollar-plus bonuses at the end of the year -- do you think that CEO might be getting rich off YOU ... even just a little bit?

Yes, true. Although I have never supported bank bailouts, and have spoken out against them in other threads.

tslust

12-26-2011, 05:09 PM

Yes, it appears that the 10th amendment is being ignored, especially by the current administration.

Between the recently passed (I'm not sure if it's been signed into law yet.) National Deffence Authorization Act and the upcoming Stop Online Piracy Act, there's not much of the Constitution left.

transjen

12-26-2011, 06:10 PM

If you are referring to Huey Long, that man was almost as corrupt & criminal ad Daly in Chicago.And like the House and Senate we have today isn't?
Both parties are corrupt so in the end you have to pick do we want Robin Hood or Jesse James?
I'd perfer Robin Hood
:eek: Santas naughty elf Jen

TracyCoxx

12-28-2011, 11:06 AM

Between the recently passed (I'm not sure if it's been signed into law yet.) National Deffence Authorization Act and the upcoming Stop Online Piracy Act, there's not much of the Constitution left.

Yeah, well America had a pretty good run didn't she?

tslust

12-28-2011, 06:36 PM

Yeah, well America had a pretty good run didn't she?

A study of history shows that no power (nation) stays on top of the world forever. World power will always balance out, usually at the great misfortune of the former "superpower". We [the US] are not the exception to this rule.

TracyCoxx

12-29-2011, 12:56 PM

A study of history shows that no power (nation) stays on top of the world forever. World power will always balance out, usually at the great misfortune of the former "superpower". We [the US] are not the exception to this rule.

The sad thing is that there's no reason America can't continue its status. Apathy is our only downfall. Just plain old laziness.

tslust

12-29-2011, 07:57 PM

Apathy is our only downfall. Just plain old laziness.

That's the biggest reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. The people stopped caring. They didn't care about the political corruption, they didn't care about their declining economy, they didn't care about illegal immigration (yes, it was a problem back then too), they didn't care about maintaining the army, they didn't care about the rule of law.

It's amazing how little people learn from history.

TracyCoxx

12-31-2011, 10:10 AM

We all know how great Obama is, but did you ever realize he was THIS GOOD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhJNJgjpuWk)?

:lol:

St. Araqiel

01-03-2012, 04:17 PM

If the Republicans pick Ron Paul as their candidate (which I strongly doubt), I'm switching parties. "Insane" foreign policy, my ass—his is the most rational I've ever heard of! As for his economic views, well...regulation or not, there seems to be negligible difference. The federal government might as well itself be a Fortune 500 corporation. And as much as I'm for states' rights, I worry that it might merely result in state governments intruding on liberties instead of the federal.
I dunno, though...I smell hypocrisy on him somewhere. That's how things work on Capitol Hill. Even if he's as honest as he seems, as President, he'd be hard-pressed to get things done with Congress and the S.C. jerking him around and the media smearing him. We'd have to follow up by voting more independents into the other two branches when the midterms come 'round, and there aren't many. Cleaning house just isn't that simple. The bastards could impeach him on some trumped-up charges if they had to, but it'd be easier to just tie his hands. The greedheads aren't gonna let one guy upset the applecart, no matter how many people support him.

Enoch Root

01-20-2012, 11:02 AM

Found this on youtube somehow. Thought it was funny to see Newt Gingrich get all moral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_005EqDM&feature=g-logo&context=G2ca48acFOAAAAAAACAA

TracyCoxx

01-22-2012, 03:28 PM

Found this on youtube somehow. Thought it was funny to see Newt Gingrich get all moral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_005EqDM&feature=g-logo&context=G2ca48acFOAAAAAAACAA

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

Enoch Root

01-24-2012, 11:11 AM

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.

TracyCoxx

01-26-2012, 12:11 AM

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.
Good points. Like many other beacons of christian morality (catholic priests who sexually abuse little boys, Falwell, etc) he's a hypocrite. I knew during the Lewinsky thing that it was more about getting Clinton out of office than morals and I was against the GOP trying to impeach Clinton over BS like that. I'm not concerned with who Clinton receives sexual favors from, and I'm not concerned with who Gingrich divorces or marries. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget or my freedoms or about anything I want the government to improve on. Which, again, is why it was ridiculous to open a presidential debate over jr high bs like that. There's real issues to discuss.

Enoch Root

03-05-2012, 06:21 PM

Reginald D Hunter (an American comedian) on Batman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1PMVvfjDM

TracyCoxx

03-09-2012, 07:57 AM

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

smc

03-09-2012, 08:45 AM

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

Alex Pareene, writing on Salon.com, categorizes Breitbart's "contributions" quite well:

Scalp-hunting

Pareene describes this as "the elevation and demonization of some usually obscure liberal figure done in the hopes of getting them nationally shamed and fired." As an example, he cites the Shirley Sherrod video -- which "blew up in Breitbart's face -- and notes that this kind of false demonization is so much more successful when you do it "with dead people, like Saul Alinsky" (whose famous book, notably, is required reading for many of the Tea Party leaders, and not to "know one's enemy" but as an organizing guide).

The false "proof"

Pareene notes, "It is a sad fact of online publishing that some ridiculous portion of readers only read the headlines and look at the pictures before moving on." He describes how Breitbart's websites exploit this fact: "'OBAMA MARCHES WITH NEW BLACK PANTHERS,' or something like that, goes the headline. The story can?t support the claim. It doesn?t matter. The headline means it?s true for the majority of the readership."

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

The full video was shown on Sean Hannity's show on Fox "News" Channel. He had Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak on as a guest. Pollak described Bell as the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."

You see, once you've said that, and counting on no one to pay much more attention, you've got the "headline" Breitbart was after. It's a headline that throws a bomb into civil discourse and upsets real discussion about real issues.

Yeah, Tracy Coxx, you should be very proud of your view that he will be "missed."

TracyCoxx

03-09-2012, 01:49 PM

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

smc

03-09-2012, 08:08 PM

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

TracyCoxx

03-10-2012, 01:45 AM

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

smc

03-10-2012, 06:32 AM

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

TracyCoxx

03-10-2012, 10:41 AM

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

smc

03-10-2012, 11:06 AM

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

Of course, you didn't, because then you might actually have to answer for the destructive nature of Breitbart's participation in our national political discourse. And as we know, that part of your political perspective, expressed so often on this site, is not something you can defend ... at least judging from the fact that you ignore it whenever called out, or start whining about how you're being abused.

smc

03-10-2012, 11:22 AM

To clarify, the protest in question was not to get tenure but to support Derrick Bell's call for greater diversity in the faculty and granting of tenure to minorities. Now, on to answer Tracy Coxx, as promised earlier.

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

Ensuring diversity in a university faculty has long required some form of affirmative action in hiring and tenure-granting. Your characterization of this as "racist" suggests that there is no real point in trying to have a real discussion about the issue, unless you are willing to acknowledge the disadvantage that people of color have generally had because of the discrimination they have suffered from an early age, which results in far fewer potential professors.

By the way, Derrick Bell was granted tenure (before the protest in the "Breitbart video," because he was an eminent scholar, first and foremost. Affirmative action for tenure is not about granting exclusively on the basis of race, but on making an extra effort to find qualified candidates who will bring diversity to a faculty ... because such diversity strengthens the educational process for students.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Obama, like most of the Harvard Law School students, identified with Bell's call for diversity in the faculty ... precisely because they saw it as good for their own educations.

... You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

What a crock of shit. What a poor attempt to change the subject by making it about the media and bringing up Sarah Palin. (By the way, I think that the stuff about Sarah Palin's family was disgusting and shameful to have released publicly, regardless of whether any of it was true).

You should have worked with Breitbart, because by calling Bell "a guy with this extreme racist ideology" and then saying the "president is endorsing" him, you have done exactly what Breitbart did with the smear of Shirley Sherrod (I refer those interested to Google the words Breitbart and Sherrod)

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Get out much? How's the view with your head in the sand? The idea that "MediaMatters dictates stories for the news outlets" and that the opposition is being strong-armed is nothing but talking points. It's not real discussion Prove your patently false claim.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I refer all to the points above. Bell's tenure was not in question. And define "extremist" in this context. I think it means anyone who doesn't correspond to the TracyCoxx world view.

Enoch Root

03-23-2012, 10:07 AM

Occupy Oakland:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/01/31/occupy-oakland-inmates-santa-rita-attacked-developing-story

GRH

03-23-2012, 11:16 AM

smc

03-23-2012, 02:58 PM

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

These are complex questions that would be better answered in a conversation than in the context of postings here, primarily because a conversation affords a greater likelihood of avoiding the tendency to polemicize. But I will make an effort.

First, I think it?s important to be very clear about what is meant by ?affirmative action,? because those who oppose it have succeeded in branding it with a very negative term -- ?reverse discrimination? -- that is, in my view, patently false.

In essence, affirmative action is the umbrella term for initiatives and public policies that have been established to aid in eliminating past and present discrimination based on (primarily) race, (often) gender, and (less common) religion and national origin. Executive Orders and later interpretations by the courts of federal affirmative action policies have made abundantly clear that anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid educational or job qualifications. That is why the ?unwarranted preferences? argument is invalid, in my view. Currently, there are nearly 100,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, and less than 2 percent are about ?reverse discrimination,? so I think that puts the ?RD? argument to rest.

(By the way, in Canada, job-related affirmative action goes by the name ?employment equity.? It?s about fairness.)

Affirmative action exists because despite Constitutional guarantees of equality, discrimination -- especially on the basis of race and gender -- has become an entrenched part of American society. This means that, for example, a young black woman is likely to go to an inferior school compared to her white counterpart, because discrimination (writ large, in employment of her parents, and so on) relegates her to a neighborhood with fewer resources, and thus to a poorer school, and thus to less educational opportunity, and on it goes. These things accumulate to hold her back from achievement, not because of some inherent inferiority but because the things typically used to measure success are biased against those with her set of experiences (consider, for example, the SAT tests). Thus, to level the playing field, a university might give her a chance to win admission over someone who ?had it easier.?

Note that this is a very simplistic example.

At its core, and this is something few want to admit, affirmative action is about taking on the white male power structure directly. So, while liberal supporters of affirmative action may balk at saying what I am about to say, I have no problem doing so: when a young black woman is given a slot in a college class despite lower grades, lower test scores, and less compelling resume experiences (e.g., being a ?Big Sister? versus that trip to Honduras to rebuild houses after a natural disaster) than the white male she (indirectly) displaced, society is paying back her race and gender for hundreds of years of discrimination. And society OWES THAT DEBT, until the discrimination at the institutional level is eradicated.

I?m not big on quoting U.S. presidents, but two of them actually make this case very eloquently. In 1961, President Kennedy signed an executive order mandating that beneficiaries of federal monies ?take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.? In essence, he was saying that we as a nation were not only going to talk about racial equality, and desegration, but walk the walk.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act expanded affirmative action, and President Johnson said this:

?You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ?now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.? You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ?you are free to compete with all the others,? and still justly believe you have been completely fair ... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity?not just legal equity but human ability?not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

Now, to your specific questions, GRH, which are as much about the purpose of diversity as they are about affirmative action.

You are correct about the racial composition of the population my neighbor New England state, Maine. Should the University of Maine reflect that composition exactly. I think not. The reason is that the objective of affirmative action is not only to level the playing field, but also introduce diversity to the institution. Students benefit from living and learning in a diverse environment. Businesses DEMAND this from graduates -- which is why so many leading corporations filed amicus briefs when the University of Michigan?s affirmative actions were challenged in court a couple of years back.

I would not be so bold as to pretend I know what the numbers ought to be. I believe that if people are of good will, genuinely committed to fairness and diversity, things will work out as they ought to be. There is some point of critical mass, but it is different in every context.

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

I could, of course, say much more. I hope this starts a worthwhile discourse.

transjen

03-24-2012, 07:41 PM

The GOP are screaming cut spending do away with medicare
And yet thanks to goverment cadliac heathplans that all the sen and house plus unsurpeme court presidents and vice presidents enjoy at tax players exprnse
The American people [tax payers] just got a good :coupling: today as we had to pay for Dick Cheneys heart transplant
A few hundred k to keep that MF alive
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx

03-29-2012, 12:16 AM

smc

03-29-2012, 01:40 PM

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

Thanks for stopping by to play again, Tracy Coxx. It's always refreshing to see the consistency in your game. If you don't have an answer when your factually challenged, provocation-riddled posts are responded to, you simply ignore them. Kudos for making such fine contributions to the community.

transjen

03-30-2012, 02:22 PM

Who ever believes that this unsupreme court will make there ruling based on the law and not party dogma stand on your head and spin
The block of five already know how they would vote even before a sign word was said want proof just look at Thomas who just sat there not making a peep or asking one single question
It'll be another five to four vote with the five in lock step just like there five to four vote giving America the biggest :coupling: in 2000 with putting W in the white house
Where's the GOP's outrage about activest judges? as none are more activest judges then the gang of five who can careless about law and only care about there parties dogma
the supreme court should be done away with all together
:turnoff: Jerseygirl Jen

smc

03-30-2012, 02:24 PM

TracyCoxx

03-31-2012, 10:20 AM

the supreme court should be done away with all together
:turnoff: Jerseygirl Jen LOL yeah, that'll happen.

Btw, here's a few numbers for you Jen.

Obama says Obamacare will cost $900 Billion over the next decade.
Then the congressional budget office says it will actually cost $1.76 Trillion.
Quite a bit more eh? But hold on to your socks. It was recently learned that the number went up to $2.6 trillion over the next decade.

Oh if it were only that cheap. They continued looking into it and the number is up to $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This comes from Obama's own numbers when combined with existing medicare and medicaid funding shortfalls.

This is what happens when you take a democrat's word when she says "You'll have to pass it to find out what's in it."

This bill alone, that was put together behind closed doors, and delivered to congress in the form of a 2000+ page bill that you know good & well no one had a chance to read but a fraction of it, will double our national debt within 10 years. Our current debt level and problems with passing a budget already took us from a 5 star rating to 4 stars for the first time in history. What effect do you think this will have?

I can look into your future though. When the next republican comes into office, you'll be cursing their name because of the $17T debt that developed during their terms LOL.

ila

03-31-2012, 10:35 AM

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

TracyCoxx

03-31-2012, 12:11 PM

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

smc

03-31-2012, 12:19 PM

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

TracyCoxx

03-31-2012, 04:19 PM

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

smc

03-31-2012, 10:42 PM

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

Of course, neither of the two words "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" appear even one time in the video you posted. But don't let that get in the way of trying to make your point ... a point that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

As for the "individual mandate," irrespective of whether Obama changed his position on it, are you willing to admit to the fact that the concept was first developed by Republicans back in 1989 and introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare plan later. And that when it was introduced by Republicans, the penalty for failure to buy insurance was actually a fine equal to the lowest-cost premium available on the market for insurance, and being forced to enroll in a plan, and an escalating penalty over time for refusal (unlike the measly penalty in so-called "ObamaCare"). Or, as is typical, will you simply ignore the fact or, even more typical, just go on to some other topic and pretend I never posted this?

GRH

04-01-2012, 08:49 AM

The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Now whether you believe this power should be interpreted broadly or narrowly may depend on your political stripes; however, the Court's earlier rulings in Wickard and Raich so broadened the interpretation of what constitutes "regulating interstate commerce" that I'd personally consider ANYTHING fair game. Normal judicial interpretation would be bound by precedent set by the earlier Court rulings-- but I'm sure the block of 5 are figuring a technical loophole so that they can say Wickard, et al. does not in fact apply.

What's interesting is, Congress could have EASILY mandated a flat tax on EVERY citizen (let's call it the Health Care Tax). They could have then offered an offsetting tax credit (equal to the original tax) for anyone that had qualifying health insurance. This would have easily fallen under Congressional authority to tax. This would have had the same practical effect as the insurance mandate. A lot of the Constitutionality of the mandate hinges upon whether it is in fact a tax or a penalty. The political distaste for being seen as "raising taxes" is coming home to bite the Democrats in the butt. If they had the foresight to simply levy a tax (and call it that), this bill wouldn't be in Court today (at least for the individual mandate).

TracyCoxx

04-01-2012, 10:14 AM

As for the "individual mandate," irrespective of whether Obama changed his position on it, are you willing to admit to the fact that the concept was first developed by Republicans back in 1989 and introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare plan later. And that when it was introduced by Republicans, the penalty for failure to buy insurance was actually a fine equal to the lowest-cost premium available on the market for insurance, and being forced to enroll in a plan, and an escalating penalty over time for refusal (unlike the measly penalty in so-called "ObamaCare").
I don't care who came up with it first. It's unconstitutional. Mitt Romney forced it upon his state. How many republicans do you see supporting that now?

smc

04-01-2012, 11:51 AM

I don't care who came up with it first. It's unconstitutional. Mitt Romney forced it upon his state. How many republicans do you see supporting that now?

Well dodged. Again, you ignore the original point I made about the Supreme Court, and try -- by simply ignoring the challenge -- to make it seem as if Obama himself ever called the individual mandate "unconstitutional."

As for Republicans supporting it ... well, there is hypocrisy in politics, isn't there. The opposition isn't principled; it's for political expediency.

TracyCoxx

04-02-2012, 08:17 AM

Well dodged. Again, you ignore the original point I made about the Supreme Court, and try -- by simply ignoring the challenge -- to make it seem as if Obama himself ever called the individual mandate "unconstitutional."

What this nonsense? Where you try and claim that only a few ideologues and ME think the health care bill is unconstitutional? I didn't think it was serious enough to comment on, but of you insist, see the attachment.
Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

Even the majority of democrats must admit that the bill is unconstitutional.

edit: it wouldn't attach. Tlb says it's not a valid image for some reason.
Here's the url instead
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2n4yabvzkeqoqljhlh9b9q.gif

smc

04-02-2012, 08:41 AM

What this nonsense? Where you try and claim that only a few ideologues and ME think the health care bill is unconstitutional? I didn't think it was serious enough to comment on, but of you insist, see the attachment.

Isn't it just grand to read things in a manner where you see only what you want to see, rather than what someone really wrote? That way, you can argue whichever point you want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

1. I NEVER, EVER used the word "only" where you ascribe it to me.

2. I wrote about the SUBJECTIVITY of determining the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of things that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Anyone who reads the exchange can see that. So, keep trying to put words in my mouth. It doesn't change the truth.

Even the majority of democrats must admit that the bill is unconstitutional.

edit: it wouldn't attach. Tlb says it's not a valid image for some reason.
Here's the url instead
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2n4yabvzkeqoqljhlh9b9q.gif

As for the opinion of the American people, it is an acknowledged fact among all serious followers of politics that the polls on this issue are heavily influenced as much by how the debate has been framed by partisan messengers, or how some have failed to frame the debate, as anything else. This is typical with such polls. Reasonable people can reasonably conclude that the poll you cite is no different than all the polls showing that people who opposed ALL government involvement in healthcare before the Affordable Care Act was passed were also highly like to agree with the statement "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare."

TracyCoxx

04-03-2012, 07:49 AM

Isn't it just grand to read things in a manner where you see only what you want to see, rather than what someone really wrote? That way, you can argue whichever point you want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

1. I NEVER, EVER used the word "only" where you ascribe it to me.Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

As for the opinion of the American people, it is an acknowledged fact among all serious followers of politics that the polls on this issue are heavily influenced as much by how the debate has been framed by partisan messengers, or how some have failed to frame the debate, as anything else. This is typical with such polls. Reasonable people can reasonably conclude that the poll you cite is no different than all the polls showing that people who opposed ALL government involvement in healthcare before the Affordable Care Act was passed were also highly like to agree with the statement "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare."I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

smc

04-03-2012, 08:16 AM

I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

Translation: "I will just imply that smc did what I did, and hope that it will confuse everyone and make it seem like a non-issue. Truth be damned!" -- Tracy Coxx

(Yes, and before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

Translation: "I wonder how it will work if instead of addressing the real substance of what smc wrote, which he has now stated more than once, I keep up this same line and try to avoid answering the point about the subjectivity of determining the 'constitutionality' of something?" -- TracyCoxx

(Again, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Translation: "Hey, maybe it can work again? I will avoid the substantive point smc makes about how the terms of debate influence polls, and just restate my earlier point. That way, people will think I'm actually discussing when I'm not." -- TracyCoxx

(For a third time, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

You really do display tremendous cowardice when it comes to debating. Perhaps you should run for public office ... you'd fit right in with most candidates of both major parties.

(And just to be clear, before you go whining to others about how you've been insulted, I characterized your debating style, not you.)

TracyCoxx

04-03-2012, 12:15 PM

Translation of your translations: I'm going to read things in a manner where I see only what I want to see, rather than what TracyCoxx really wrote. That way, I can argue whichever point I want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

Let's cut the crap. Do you really think anyone believes you're accurately paraphrasing my position? Do you really believe they haven't noticed that you're dodging the discussion again .

We're off topic and back on to familiar whining territory. Let me know when you're ready to discuss things reasonably.

And now for your predictable response complaining of dodging, sophistry etc to which I'll say seriously... Back on topic.

smc

04-03-2012, 05:33 PM

TracyCoxx

04-03-2012, 07:31 PM

Yes, back on topic. Go back to what I wrote about the subjectivity of determining the "constitutionality" of something and respond to it.
Ok back on topic...

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

smc

04-03-2012, 09:20 PM

Ok back on topic...

It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax. Some argue that it IS simply because it happens to be collected by the IRS. But that, logically, does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a tax. Hence, my point about subjectivity. The justices must opine as to what it is. As I wrote earlier, the Founding Fathers are not here to weigh in, and who knows ... perhaps they would not have seen it as a tax, according to their understanding of what "tax" means.

Further, the Constitution does allow the government to regulate interstate commerce. Some argue that this penalty falls under that allowance. Again, it is a subjective judgment that must be made.

GRH

04-03-2012, 10:43 PM

That's an excellent point smc about the subjectivity of determining the supposed "Constitutionality" of things not explicitly granted or forbidden to the government. Personally, do I think it's wise governance to go mandating the purchase of certain independent, third party products/services? No, not really. However, reading our current Constitution also does not lead me to feel such regulation is outside the realm of what Congress can legally do.

The commerce clause reads pretty broadly to me-- and it has been interpreted in such a way historically. For anyone (aka. Tracy) who feels that this is such an obviously unConstitutional issue, I want to know why you feel that the precedent of Wickard can be ignored in this case? Some of the Supreme Court justices were mockingly asking questions if the Affordable Care Act's logical conclusion was that the government could mandate buying broccoli, etc. Personally, I don't think it matters if this is the end conclusion of such "mandates." I find that such market regulation to not be forbidden by the Constitution.

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

TracyCoxx

04-04-2012, 08:13 AM

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax.
It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.

TracyCoxx

04-04-2012, 08:17 AM

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

I'm going to work so I'll answer the rest of your post later, but I'll respond to this part. If they had replaced penalties with taxes then they would have had a lot stronger case in the supreme court. But they didn't...

smc

04-04-2012, 08:26 AM

It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.

My point about subjectivity is not about bias per se. Of course, bias plays a role in subjective judgment. But as I have stated over and again in this particular discussion, my point is about the inherent subjectivity -- independent of all other things -- of deciding the so-called "constitutionality" of anything that is not specifically referenced in the Constitution. I was criticizing the definitive statement "it is unconstitutional" being used by you, or anyone else prior to a ruling, as a statement of fact, rather than "my judgment, based on the arguments, is that this is constitutional," which is a statement of opinion. And, after all, isn't what the Supreme Court issues an OPINION?

As for recusal, why shouldn't Clarence Thomas recuse himself, too? He and his wife have both benefited from specific political contributions made to his wife's organization from people who have made their particular desire to see the Affordable Care Act overturned. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?