Liberal free for all coming to an end

[Enoch Root]

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.

Are you sure about that? Isn't Aljazeera (how do you write this?) ex-BBC people?

[ila]

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

[Enoch Root]

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

Is that sarcasm?

[smc]

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

Is that sarcasm?

Enoch Root, is yours a rhetorical question?

I think it behooves Westerners to watch the English-language broadcasts of al-Jazeera. Forget what the reporters say (and, by the way, they are very highly regarded by their peers in the Western press). What al-Jazeera offers that is next to impossible to find in the United States and, to only a somewhat lesser extent, Canadian press is the perspective of regular people in the countries of the Middle East, unfiltered by American talking heads on the left and right. For instance, if you watch al-Jazeera, you will learn that the only people who thought the Egyptian uprising was aptly called a "Twitter and Facebook revolution" are American journalists and pundits who love (even if subconsciously) to find a way for America to take credit for everything, even if it's just via inventions by Americans.

Still, in that there is hardly any unbiased reporting anywhere in the world, ila is correct.

[randolph]

The news and especially TV news is filtered through the owners of the TV station. TV stations are very sensitive to the corporations that provide TV advertising. Fox news is in my opinion the worst news station in the US. Murdock is only interested in making money by appealing to the lowest denominator of the US public. For non TV news, NPR is very good.

[transjen]

FOX news should really rename themselves as GOP news or the gossipal accord to Palin news, all kidding aside FOX news is geared for those who listen to the tub of lard Rush all day so perhaps they could rename themselve the Ditto news for and by ditto heads
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[Enoch Root]

Enoch Root, is yours a rhetorical question?

I think it behooves Westerners to watch the English-language broadcasts of al-Jazeera. Forget what the reporters say (and, by the way, they are very highly regarded by their peers in the Western press). What al-Jazeera offers that is next to impossible to find in the United States and, to only a somewhat lesser extent, Canadian press is the perspective of regular people in the countries of the Middle East, unfiltered by American talking heads on the left and right. For instance, if you watch al-Jazeera, you will learn that the only people who thought the Egyptian uprising was aptly called a "Twitter and Facebook revolution" are American journalists and pundits who love (even if subconsciously) to find a way for America to take credit for everything, even if it's just via inventions by Americans.

Still, in that there is hardly any unbiased reporting anywhere in the world, ila is correct.

No it was not rhetorical question. I have trouble with sarcasm when speaking to people and in cyberspace there is no inflection which makes it more difficult.

How accurate is the accusation that pundits always try to find a way to give credit to America for everything? Either way it seems like an odd thing for them to say or think--didn't the US support Mubarak for decades?

[TracyCoxx]

Well today Paul Ryan of the GOP gave his verson of the 2012 budget and i give him credit as he seems very serious about doing away with the red ink but thats where the credit ends as this budget is another GOP FU TO THE COMMON PERSON as once agian the GOP are showing who they really care about cutting trillions of dollars but cuting medicare and medicade and planed parents but giveing the top tax bracket another tax cut going with the GOP'S ideals that the rich shall not pay any of the national debit nor shall they sufer from any planed cuts and corpate welfare will also not sufer so the oil companies can rest easy and will recive billions from the goverment and the working poor will get to pay the tab and sufer from the cuts
looks like the 2012 budget is another big :coupling: from the GOP as the continue to only be looking out for the rich and big bussiness and give the rest of us the BS about trickle down
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Yes, there are some rich who find so many tax breaks that they don't have to pay taxes at all. Like GE.

BTW, have you seen how close GE is with the BO administration? First, there?s the policy overlap: Obama wants cap-and-trade, GE wants cap-and-trade. Obama subsidizes embryonic stem-cell research, GE launches an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama calls for rail subsidies, GE hires Linda Daschle as a rail lobbyist. Obama gives a speeech, GE employee Chris Matthews feels a thrill up his leg.

And then, none other than GE's CEO Jeff Immelt sits on the President?s Economic Recovery Advisory board.

But I digress... About the rich, and this is from FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html).
"The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income."

Do you see that Jen? Comprehend that. The top 1% paid 28% of all federal taxes. How much percent of all federal taxes is your tax bracket paying Jen?

And another question. The US debt is a result of the government digging itself into a hole. Tell me, why is it the rich's responsibility to bail them out? The government didn't have to budget more than they bring in, but yet they did. Why is that? The government didn't have to take us off the gold standard in exchange for importing goods from China, Japan and other countries, and yet they did (which took business away from US companies, aka 'the rich'). Why is that? It is one stupid move by the government after another that put us in debt like we are. Tell me: WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE RICH, OR ANYONE ELSE TO FIX THE MESS THEY MADE?

[TracyCoxx]

FOX news should really rename themselves as GOP news or the gossipal accord to Palin news, all kidding aside FOX news is geared for those who listen to the tub of lard Rush all day so perhaps they could rename themselve the Ditto news for and by ditto heads
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Fox is slanted, but not nearly as much as other news outlets. And at least they are not this bad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFJvlzDpey4

Chris Matthews: I want to do everything I can to make this thing work. This new presidency work.

Interviewer: Is that your job?

Chris Matthews: Yeah, that's my job.

[TracyCoxx]

It will enable the military to bomb more countries with multimillion dollar bombs. You see, we are trying to protect the world from suicide bombers that kill themselves and other people. Our bombs are good bombs, they usually just kill bad guys. That's why they are so expensive. :censored:
I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying. Yes, our bombs are better, in that they are much more targeted. Yes it therefore costs more money, but are you saying that's a bad thing? Isn't it worth it not to blow up just whatever happens to be nearby and to target your attacks?

[randolph]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying. Yes, our bombs are better, in that they are much more targeted. Yes it therefore costs more money, but are you saying that's a bad thing? Isn't it worth it not to blow up just whatever happens to be nearby and to target your attacks?

I am being sarcastic. The Republicans hate taking care of people who need help and love bombing people who don't cooperate with us.
The military/ industrial complex is alive and well and fully supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.
When are we going to get serious about our future energy supply? Is building more and more sophisticated weaponry that is mind boggling expensive going to solve anything? :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

When are we going to get serious about our future energy supply? Is building more and more sophisticated weaponry that is mind boggling expensive going to solve anything? :frown:We'll get serious about future energy once we have a viable alternative. Mr Fusion would be nice. I also hear the engineers are having problems with hydrogen powered cars, but then I think I heard Norway is already running them? Either way, our energy supplier goes from the MidEast to Russia since they seem to have most of the hydrogen resources.

And of course sophisticated weaponry will solve things. Haven't you seen Iron Man? Seriously though, it's worked ever since our ancestors threw rocks.

[randolph]

Tracy And of course sophisticated weaponry will solve things. Haven't you seen Iron Man? Seriously though, it's worked ever since our ancestors threw rocks.

Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up! :frown:

Oh! for the glory days of Teddy Roosevelt and his great white fleet sailing around the world letting every one know how great we are.

[Enoch Root]

Good old Tracy, I can always depend on you for a loaf of halfbaked bullshit and imperialist entitlement. I find it amazing how you vacillate from pro-business bullshit to trying to sound like a reasonable person about GE's business and their tax debacle but it does implicate Obama so I guess it's easier for you to do that. And I love how you portray the victimizers (ie, the rich) as the poor victims of government policies, never mind that it is the rich who make laws to suit their own selfish ends, never mind that there is no real delineation between government and the private sector, never mind that it is deregulation that is to blame for so many problems, never mind that the economic system you love so much is a slave system.

Criminals should pay for their crimes. But I guess I'm just a parasite so what do I know?

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy

Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up! :frown:

Oh! for the glory days of Teddy Roosevelt and his great white fleet sailing around the world letting every one know how great we are.

I do agree with BO on one thing. Militarily, we are spread thin. So yes, we should have had command at the beginning like we did. NATO should have the capability of carrying on from there. What I don't like is that it hardly seemed planned. No one could agree on what exactly the goal was. Also, BO was barely committed to seeing it through. And they took their time getting it going. You don't commit our troops to battle if you don't really give a shit one way or another what happens.

never mind that it is the rich who make laws to suit their own selfish ends, never mind that there is no real delineation between government and the private sector, never mind that it is deregulation that is to blame for so many problems, never mind that the economic system you love so much is a slave system.mmmm hmmm. If you say so.

I'm just a parasite so what do I know?Who said you're a parasite?

[TracyCoxx]

Boner fucked up last night. He seemed to have forgotten two of his pledges: Defund Obamacare, and cut spending $100 billion. I'm tired of republicans who put pleasing democrats over pleasing their own constituents.

[ila]

Tracy

Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up! :frown:


Actually the current cost, to the US is 500,000,000. That would include the cost of the missiles as well as the all other operational costs such as fuel for the aircraft, parts replacements, all munitions, and the cost of operating the ships involved.

I do agree with BO on one thing. Militarily, we are spread thin. So yes, we should have had command at the beginning like we did. NATO should have the capability of carrying on from there. What I don't like is that it hardly seemed planned. No one could agree on what exactly the goal was. Also, BO was barely committed to seeing it through. And they took their time getting it going. You don't commit our troops to battle if you don't really give a shit one way or another what happens.

The US is a signatory to NATO so why do the two of you try to make it look like NATO and the US are separate entities when it comes to military alliances and actions.

I disagree that the US should have retained command. Other countries are more than capable of taking command of military operations.

I do agree that no politician thought about what goal is to be achieved. It seems that the only thought was to destroy Libya's military capability and maybe hope that Qadhafi would leave of his own accord or maybe be overthrown. Beyond that the politicians don't have a clue as to what to do because no plan was ever made.

[Enoch Root]

mmmm hmmm. If you say so.

When you've nothing to say I guess you can always resort to onomatopoeia and condescension.

The briefest glance at the world shows it to be shackled by the American empire: sweatshops to make Nike shoes and garden-variety exploited workers in South America making your Cocacola--who are sometimes murdered by their government, a government that is in cahoots with the US to provide them cheap slave labor. Chinese workers are exploited every day to make all manner of crap that is summarily bought by Americans in thrall by your greedy, materialistic consumerist culture. The list goes on and on. And let us not forget this is because these American companies believe it natural to exploit people, just like the aristocracy of old. Let us not forget either that the use of slave labor is the real reason why jobs have been "offshored." You have to put the hoi polloi in their place after all. You have to put them to work, make them useful, show them who's boss. This is what I mean by slaves.

The point about parasites should be well known to you. Libertarians love that word don't they? "Burden us not with your chaff" and other such authoritarian garbage. These exploited workers are the "parasites" and so am I since I'm Puertorican. I'm just a moocher, a freeloader and so are the Indonesians in sweatshops and so are Mexican immigrants and so are the average US workers. It's what authoritarians always do: they exploit people and then they scapegoat them. That should sound familiar: teachers and unions are blamed for the financial troubles even though they were caused by tax cuts for the rich and two wars which have yet to end.

This issue of "parasite" or some other similar labeling of victims is at the heart of your absurd sociopolitical beliefs--you look down on the smallfolk, but pander to the rich and powerful.

[randolph]

Ila I disagree that the US should have retained command. Other countries are more than capable of taking command of military operations.

Are they really? NATO planes bombed insurgent tanks because they didn't "know" that they had tanks. :frown:

[randolph]

Boner fucked up last night. He seemed to have forgotten two of his pledges: Defund Obamacare, and cut spending $100 billion. I'm tired of republicans who put pleasing democrats over pleasing their own constituents.

Are you aware that the Republicans voted overwhelmingly to continue a 147 million dollar annual subsidy to Brazilian cotton growers in order to protect Monsanto's sale of cotton seed in Brazil?
Meanwhile they want to defund family planning in the US.
If the Reagan and Bush taxcuts were eliminated, we would have a budget surplus and we could begin to pay off the debt.

Is that going to happen?
Not while the rest of us allow to be :coupling:

[ila]

Ila

Are they really? NATO planes bombed insurgent tanks because they didn't "know" that they had tanks. :frown:


Would you like me to produce a list of times and places that US planes bombed and strafed their allies? I could start with recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan and then start working back in time.

And BTW the only planes that NATO owns are AWACS. All other countries participating in the Libyan conflict are owned by their respective countries and that includes countries that don't belong to NATO.

[randolph]

Would you like me to produce a list of times and places that US planes bombed and strafed their allies? I could start with recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan and then start working back in time.

And BTW the only planes that NATO owns are AWACS. All other countries participating in the Libyan conflict are owned by their respective countries and that includes countries that don't belong to NATO.

I am not arguing with you on the errors US planes have made in the past.

The accidental attacks on insurgent tanks were apparently by planes flying under the NATO flag. I don't know who the planes belong to.
The point I was making is that there seems to be a serious lack of communication among the NATO participants.

[ila]

I am not arguing with you on the errors US planes have made in the past.

The accidental attacks on insurgent tanks were apparently by planes flying under the NATO flag. I don't know who the planes belong to.
The point I was making is that there seems to be a serious lack of communication among the NATO participants.

How did you reach the conclusion that there is a serious lack of communication among NATO participants? I will also remind you that there are more countries than NATO participating in enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya.

[randolph]

How did you reach the conclusion that there is a serious lack of communication among NATO participants? I will also remind you that there are more countries than NATO participating in enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya.

Well, the pilot didn't know that the insurgents had tanks! So he attacked them assuming they were Quaddafi tanks. Also, NATO expressed "regret" about the incident.

[ila]

Well, the pilot didn't know that the insurgents had tanks! So he attacked them assuming they were Quaddafi tanks. Also, NATO expressed "regret" about the incident.

None of this indicates a lack of communication among the coalition.

NATO is in charge of running the no-fly zone. Therefore any statements coming from the coalition will be statements originating from NATO.

[ila]

We'll get serious about future energy once we have a viable alternative. Mr Fusion would be nice. I also hear the engineers are having problems with hydrogen powered cars, but then I think I heard Norway is already running them? Either way, our energy supplier goes from the MidEast to Russia since they seem to have most of the hydrogen resources.

You should get your facts straight. The majority of oil imported by the US comes from Canada. The second most imports by the US are from Mexico.

[randolph]

None of this indicates a lack of communication among the coalition.

NATO is in charge of running the no-fly zone. Therefore any statements coming from the coalition will be statements originating from NATO.

Some latest news on the Libya situation. Pink tanks!

TRIPOLI, April 8 (Xinhua) -- NATO Friday confirmed its aircraft bombed a rebel tank column in Libya, while the U.N. Human Rights Council appointed three experts to investigate alleged rights abuses in the conflict-torn country.
Rear Admiral Russell Harding, a NATO military commander, said in Italy's Naples that the alliance's aircraft bombed a rebel tank column near the oil town of Brega on Thursday.
"Two of our strikes yesterday may have resulted in deaths of a number of TNC (the Transitional National Council) forces, who were operating in battle tanks. The incident took place northeast of Brega."
"The situation in this area is still very fluid, with tanks and other vehicles moving in different directions, making it very difficult to distinguish who maybe operating them. In addition, until this time, we have not seen the TNC operating tanks," he said.
The bombing appeared to be the second friendly fire strike by NATO aircraft in less than a week. Last Saturday, a NATO air strike killed 13 rebel fighters near Brega, who were firing into the air to celebrate.
Meantime, NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said there was "no purely military solution" for the Libyan crisis.
"It is important to find a political solution ... There is no stalemate, just on the contrary, there is a clear drive from the international community to urgently find a political solution to this conflict," she said.
After the latest NATO mistake, Libyan rebels have painted the roofs of their vehicles bright pink to avoid more friendly fire casualties.

[transjen]

Boner fucked up last night. He seemed to have forgotten two of his pledges: Defund Obamacare, and cut spending $100 billion. I'm tired of republicans who put pleasing democrats over pleasing their own constituents.


i have to laugh at all of the GOP who are now pissing and moaning about the budget and are demanding cuts and are so worried about the sea of red ink when for eight years they said not a word when W was run up the credit card with his massive tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded wars
So now that a DEM is in the white house all of a sudden you are worried about it and yet you still want all of W's tax cuts left alone and in fact you want them made bigger
So if you were serious Bush's tax cuts would be the first to go then end both wars and not start a third like John Macain wants and the GOP are banging the war drum for and end corpate wellfare
But no the GOP wants just the poor to suffer from the cuts and pay for sea of red ink while the rich party on and get even more tax cuts
Don't cut planned parent hood do away with Bush's tax cuts and it's time the rich started paying there share
GEORGE W BUSH created this mess with his trickle down BS and two wars put on credit so F:censored: rich and make them start paying there share
Trickle down does not create jobs and the world will not end if the taxes for the rich went back to pre 2001 amounts
The GOP wants to end entitlements then the first to go should be the rich should pass less then everyone else
:eek:Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

When you've nothing to say I guess you can always resort to onomatopoeia and condescension.No, you've just made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. I could get all worked up over it, or just recognize that that's your thing and let it go.

Chinese workers are exploited every day to make all manner of crap that is summarily blah blah blahChina is doing very well off our nickle. I would like very much for that to end, and for that work to come back over to the US. If the Chinese are exploited they have their government to thank. There's no reason for them to be living in the conditions they are. China is a very wealthy nation.

This issue of "parasite" or some other similar labeling of victims is at the heart of your absurd sociopolitical beliefs--you look down on the smallfolk, but pander to the rich and powerful.
Parasite is your word not mine. I'm not going to say it does or does not apply to you. I don't know you and you don't know me. You don't know who I look down on or who I pander to. And I've never heard the phrase "Burden us not with your chaff". I even googled it... nothing. It's catchy though. You should make a t-shirt with that written on it and sell it.

[TracyCoxx]

Either way, our energy supplier goes from the MidEast to Russia since they seem to have most of the hydrogen resources.You should get your facts straight. The majority of oil imported by the US comes from Canada. The second most imports by the US are from Mexico.My apologies to Canada. But are you sure the US gets more oil from Mexico than the Mid East?

[TracyCoxx]

i have to laugh at all of the GOP who are now pissing and moaning about the budget and are demanding cutswait wait... I have really not read the rest yet, but I sense some good ol fashioned George Bush bashing coming on....
and are so worried about the sea of red ink when for eight years they said not a word when Whahaaaaa there it is. Jen, who is it that's pressuring Boner to make real cuts in spending?

So if you were serious Bush's tax cuts would be the first to go then end both warsHey, tell it to your Obama :lol:

But even he knows that ending Bush's tax cuts would tank the economy. So you really don't think it's possible that we might be over spending somewhere? There was one congressman I saw on the news yesterday who came up with several hundred million to cut for a particular item in defense. It passed without any no votes at all. Are you sure you wouldn't concede that it's possible we're spending too much?

[franalexes]

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." Theodore Roosevelt

[ila]

My apologies to Canada. But are you sure the US gets more oil from Mexico than the Mid East?

I'm not sure about the total quantities coming from Mexico and the Middle East. I do know that Mexico is ranked second as the country that supplies the US with oil, however all the countries of the Middle East combined may supply more oil than Mexico.

[randolph]

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." Theodore Roosevelt


Dear ol Teddy was the most progressive Republican president we have ever had. Such as, minimum wage, workman's comp, child labor, retirements, trust busting, etc.
He was the peoples Republican president. Most of the programs put in place by FDR were initiated by TR.
Republicans today want to do away with all the progressive programs that he started and return the country to the time when a few very rich men ruled the country (J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, et. al.). When children worked in the coal mines for six dollars a month. No minimum wage, no workers comp, no retirement, no health care. :frown:

Ah yes, we have so much to look forward to with Republicans in control of the government. :eek:

[randolph]

I'm not sure about the total quantities coming from Mexico and the Middle East. I do know that Mexico is ranked second as the country that supplies the US with oil, however all the countries of the Middle East combined may supply more oil than Mexico.

The oil output of Mexico is declining. The sale of oil is what sustains the Mexican government. In the near future Mexico will no longer have oil to sell and will likely descend into chaos. The people of US border states better get prepared. :eek:
Egypt and Libya are contained by desert. We have a wadeable river!

[franalexes]

Dear ol Teddy was the most progressive Republican president we have ever had. Such as, minimum wage, workman's comp, child labor, retirements, trust busting, etc.
He was the peoples Republican president. Most of the programs put in place by FDR were initiated by TR.
Republicans today want to do away with all the progressive programs that he started and return the country to the time when a few very rich men ruled the country (J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, et. al.). When children worked in the coal mines for six dollars a month. No minimum wage, no workers comp, no retirement, no health care. :frown:

Ah yes, we have so much to look forward to with Republicans in control of the government. :eek:

"lie" What do you think Tracy? Do we start counting now?

[randolph]

"lie" What do you think Tracy? Do we start counting now?

Well Fran, your support (Tracy, Ila) are off line. The liberals (Jen, Enoch) are also off line. So I guess we need to have a cup of coffee and wait for reinforcements. ;)

[ila]

...Republicans today want to do away with all the progressive programs that he started and return the country to the time when a few very rich men ruled the country (J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, et. al.). When children worked in the coal mines for six dollars a month. No minimum wage, no workers comp, no retirement, no health care. :frown:...

Prove it.:frown:

[Enoch Root]

Well Fran, your support (Tracy, Ila) are off line. The liberals (Jen, Enoch) are also off line. So I guess we need to have a cup of coffee and wait for reinforcements. ;)

I hope this is the first and last time I have to say this: I am not a liberal.

[randolph]

I hope this is the first and last time I have to say this: I am not a liberal.

Well, I guess that means you want to stay out of the discussion?

[transjen]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;181030]:

But even he knows that ending Bush's tax cuts would tank the economy[QUOTE]


Ah yes the same BS we have heard from the GOP sine Ronnie R it's doom and gloom if the rich have to pay there fair share of taxes
The GOP cry goverment is to big ok then first lets end Bush's expanded goverment and do away with his homeland defence agency after all it's nothing but a make you feel a false sense of safty
second end corpate wellfare the oil companies need no help
third defense spending lets shut down some of our overseas bases and keep only the truely needed ones open
fourth end the BUSH BS tax cuts for the rich and go back to the 2000 tax rates and the world would not end
fifth do away with the tax welfare for big bussness and stop these tax agreements where the end up paying almost nothing talking about the tv ads that ask have you past due taxes and owe more then 10 grand call us and you'll pay pennies on the dollar
sixth cut the payroll of the house senate and whitehouse all three are way over paid and all deserve a 30% pay cut
seventh cut out taxpayers from have to pay for all former presidents to have a office and all expanes paid for from taxpayers,if BUSH CLINTON BUSH wants an office and staff well fine make them pay for it themselves
edightth end all aid to other countries the GOP claim we are broke so end aid for for outside countries
tenth stop paying illegals collage healthcare food housing school and all other goodies the leetch one too they don't belong here and these funds should go to US born citizens who need the help
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[ila]

...sixth cut the payroll of the house senate and whitehouse all three are way over paid and all deserve a 30% pay cut...

:respect:A paycut is good idea for politicians everywhere. But when has any politician ever taken a pay cut. They all prefer to oink at the public trough.

[randolph]

:respect:A paycut is good idea for politicians everywhere. But when has any politician ever taken a pay cut. They all prefer to oink at the public trough.

I like the way the Athenians selected their legislators. Eligible candidates names from representative segments of the society were put in a hat and then selected by drawing for one term. Oh by the way, they paid there own way. No campains, no politics, no huge campaign funds, no bull shit. They just served their country as a citizen for a period of time.

[randolph]

Prove it.:frown:

Here is an example.

Another indicator of the real conservative agenda

Posted at 8:53 AM by Rob Schofield (http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/?author=5)


One of the big lies of modern politics is the notion that conservatives are against ?big government? interfering in the lives of individuals. As we?ve been repeatedly reminded of late, the right actually loves big government ? especially when it comes to things like making people show their papers to law enforcement and election officials, limiting a woman?s right to decide what to do with her own body and health (http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2011/02/01/more-details-on-u-s-house-proposal-to-redefine-%E2%80%9Crape%E2%80%9D/), telling consenting adults who they can love and share their lives with, freeing up the police to engage in unlawful searches and seizures (http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H3v1.pdf)and a host of other areas.
The right loves the ?pro-freedom? moniker, but in fact, a large proportion of their policy prescriptions are about expanding government and/or corporate authority vis a vis the individual.
Next week, we?ll see another example of the conservative love for using state power to expand the rights of corporations and limit the rights of individuals when a North Carolina House committee takes up legislation (http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H30v1.pdf) to permit general creditors to garnish the wages of average folks. For decades, North Carolina has restricted this remarkably intrusive process and limited it to very specific circumstances like back taxes, child support and a few others.
When it comes, however, to general creditors like credit card companies and retailers, North Carolina has stood four-square in opposition to the idea that creditors should be able to insert themselves into an individual?s private relationship with his or her employer and/or banking institution.
In effect, wage garnishment allows these creditors (even predatory, high interest lenders who knowingly lent money to people they should have known would struggle to pay it back) to leap to the front of the line and thereby make it even harder for average people to pay their most important bills (things like rent and food and keeping the lights on).
In short, it?s another classic example of corporate interests using state power to limit the freedom of individuals ? and another example of conservative hypocrisy.

[franalexes]

"I hope you realize that my post is intended to stimulate the discussion, "stir the pot" so to speak.
R"

Now is this a stir to the right or left? Or does it just boil?

[randolph]

"I hope you realize that my post is intended to stimulate the discussion, "stir the pot" so to speak.
R"

Now is this a stir to the right or left? Or does it just boil?

Well, I think SMC and all the moderators would agree that publishing PMs is not a good thing to do. Our own "Wikileaks" so to speak.

Am I boiling? YES
The behavior of our government, Republicans and Democrats alike are threatening our way of life by ignoring the real issues facing the country and the world.
birth control food supply energy supply climate change

[franalexes]

,,,,,,,,,,, Republicans and Democrats alike are threatening our way of life,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, [/COLOR]

Gosh! you include both? Are we making progress here? :yes: I didn't ever think I see you print that. Now, how can we get those in power to understand that THEY are the problem?
I wonder how many politicians read this forum for it's POLITICAL content?
(No doubt some come here for ,,,,research. :rolleyes: )
I think if I wanted to make a serious political statement I'd be on a political forum.

[TeslaDante]

Fran, keep out of politics. These guys don't "get your drift".
They certainly don't like getting burned by the fiesty bitch.
Do what you do best. Now if you want to tease them 'til they play with themselves, get into another thread/s,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and maybe out of yours?;)

[randolph]

Fran, keep out of politics. These guys don't "get your drift".
They certainly don't like getting burned by the fiesty bitch.
Do what you do best. Now if you want to tease them 'til they play with themselves, get into another thread/s,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and maybe out of yours?;)

Hey, being flamed by Fran is what keeps things interesting around here.
What's the name of that song "Baby it hurts so good"? :yes:

[randolph]

Posted on a political forum. :respect:

Your political orientation says more about you than about the state of society. Your political orientation does not correlate with your intelligence - your ability to analyze and solve problems, it has to do with your values, and values are not rational. Evolution produced liberals and conservatives, which means each have a claim to the validity of their values. If not, evolution would have gotten rid of them. Every ideology has a dark side and a light side. Liberals and socialists are dead on when they attack robber barons and anybody else who amasses wealth by organized theft. But at some point, they become parasitic on people who earn their wealth honestly, because they cannot take the ideological blinders off. Conservatives are dead on when they perceive and respond to external threats and protect the property of people who earn their wealth honestly, but at some point they try to create a permanent hereditary wealthy class, because they cannot take the ideological blinders off. Does any one try, really try, to understand their political opponents? Rarely. Its so much more comforting to call them idiots, or sadists, or masochists, or the embodiment of evil. Its too scary to try to really understand your political opponents - it feels too much like agreeing with them. Anyone who does not wish to trancend the blinders of their own ideology is just another dog howling at the moon, like the original poster. Trancending your own ideology is not the same as discarding your ideology, or adopting that of your opponent. It just makes you sound like less of a fool.

[smc]

Posted on a political forum. :respect:

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

[TeslaDante]

rarely does a political forum or discussion bring extreem laughter but that did.
:lol::lol::lol:
SMC, I couldn't agree more. and so simply said.:respect:

[TeslaDante]

Posted on a political forum. :respect:

More likely on the men's room wall at Berkley.:rolleyes:

[smc]

More likely on the men's room wall at Berkley.:rolleyes:

... by someone who doesn't know what the word "evolution" means.

[randolph]

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

[Enoch Root]

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

I've always fancied calling such religious/authoritarian strains, "insulated." Nothing gets in.

[randolph]

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

More evidence that its not a "steaming crock of shit"

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults


Ryota Kanai1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a#aff1), http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REcor.gif (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a#cor1), http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REemail.gif (r.kanai@ucl.ac.uk), Tom Feilden2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a#aff2), Colin Firth2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a#aff2) and Geraint Rees1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a#aff1), 3 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4666f1d3391f98ba0082699bd8753735&searchtype=a#aff3)
1 University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
2 BBC Radio 4, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ, UK
3 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK


Received 11 January 2011;
revised 10 February 2011;
accepted 4 March 2011.
Published online: April 7, 2011.
Available online 7 April 2011.

Summary

Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures [1 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib1)]. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors [[2] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib2) and [3] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib3)]. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex [4 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib4)]. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring [4 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib4)] and recognition of emotional faces [5 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib5)] by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [[4] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib4) and [6] (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-52JV2HC-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F07%2F2011&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3faf05a669c83ef91a9bac19543725bb&searchtype=a#bib6)] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.


Highlights

► Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure ► Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex ► Conservatism was associated with increased right amygdala size ► Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

[ila]

Prove it.:frown:

Here is an example.

Your example is proof of nothing. It is just an opinion.

I asked you to provide proof of this:

Republicans today want to do away with all the progressive programs that he started and return the country to the time when a few very rich men ruled the country (J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, et. al.). When children worked in the coal mines for six dollars a month. No minimum wage, no workers comp, no retirement, no health care. :frown:

Where have the Republicans stated that they only want a few very rich men to rule your country, that want childeren to work in coal mines for $6 a month, that they don't want a minimum wage, that they don't want worker's comp, they don't want retirement? (Sorry, but I won't get into the healthcare debate here. It deserves a thread of its own.)

Don't just give opinions for proof of this. Provide real concrete proof. Innuendo is not proof.

[randolph]

Your example is proof of nothing. It is just an opinion.

I asked you to provide proof of this:



Where have the Republicans stated that they only want a few very rich men to rule your country, that want childeren to work in coal mines for $6 a month, that they don't want a minimum wage, that they don't want worker's comp, they don't want retirement? (Sorry, but I won't get into the healthcare debate here. It deserves a thread of its own.)

Don't just give opinions for proof of this. Provide real concrete proof. Innuendo is not proof.

Aw come on Ila you know I was not referring to the past literaly. I am simply refering whats been said ever since Reagan, what is the ultimate objective of the conservatives movement. It is to dismantle the social welfare programs in the US. The Tea Party Congressmen are saying it right now.

[ila]

Aw come on Ila you know I was not referring to the past literaly. I am simply refering whats been said ever since Reagan, what is the ultimate objective of the conservatives movement. It is to dismantle the social welfare programs in the US. The Tea Party Congressmen are saying it right now.


Conservatives, like liberals, come in many shades and flavours. So although there is no doubt some conservatives that want to make radical changes and regressions there will be many others who like the status quo and still more falling into various positions along that line between the two ends.

[randolph]

Conservatives, like liberals, come in many shades and flavours. So although there is no doubt some conservatives that want to make radical changes and regressions there will be many others who like the status quo and still more falling into various positions along that line between the two ends.

I live in a very conservative area, most of my neighbors are conservative. I am friends with all of them. We don't talk about politics, however.
I can get easily riled up over the California bureaucracy, the excessive permitting requirements and the local politics. So I am part liberal and part conservative.
By the way I am leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an Independent. I am fed up with Obama and the Democrats, ditto Republicans.

[smc]

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

Of course, I have. I do so every day. Remember, I teach at a university, where open discourse is a regular part of each day. And, notably, where the kind of arguing that is practiced by some members of this Forum, in this thread, would quickly get someone put on academic probation -- not for the positions taken, but the manner in which the discussion is carried out.

[TeslaDante]

and on the outside of academia, life goes on.
amazing!:rolleyes:

[smc]

and on the outside of academia, life goes on.
amazing!:rolleyes:

The implicit anti-intellectualism aside, there's a reason people are trained for discourse in school, whether it's in kindergarten or a PhD program. It's about the "civil" in "civilization." :yes:

[Enoch Root]

Of course, I have. I do so every day. Remember, I teach at a university, where open discourse is a regular part of each day. And, notably, where the kind of arguing that is practiced by some members of this Forum, in this thread, would quickly get someone put on academic probation -- not for the positions taken, but the manner in which the discussion is carried out.

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

[smc]

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

I would like to point out that I did not mention any posters in particular.

[Enoch Root]

I would like to point out that I did not mention any posters in particular.

That's fine. But I would like to point out that I did.

[randolph]

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

Hey, If Tracy wasn't around here to ruffle feathers, what would happen to the thread? ;)

[Enoch Root]

Hey, If Tracy wasn't around here to ruffle feathers, what would happen to the thread? ;)


It would be filled with posts containing actual information and this information would be presented without tricks and without the condescension Tracy is so good at. Like the Middle East thread which is blessedly devoid of Tracy's poison.

I am rather fond of the idea of not having to listen to any more of Tracy's--or anyone else's--vapid, entitled, self-satisfied garbage.

[ila]

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

I disagree. This site is open to anyone that wants to join and abide by the rules. Everyone is allowed to have and state opinions, no matter what others think of those opinions. And members are allowed to state their opinions in whatever manner they choose, provided they do not break the rules. Each member has his or her own unique way of giving opinions and it is not the intention of this site to censor the manner in which opinions are written.

It would be filled with posts containing actual information and this information would be presented without tricks and without the condescension Tracy is so good at. Like the Middle East thread which is blessedly devoid of Tracy's poison.

I am rather fond of the idea of not having to listen to any more of Tracy's--or anyone else's--vapid, entitled, self-satisfied garbage.

Feel free to put anyone on your ignore list with whom you disagree and do not wish to read their posts.

[smc]

I disagree. This site is open to anyone that wants to join and abide by the rules. Everyone is allowed to have and state opinions, no matter what others think of those opinions. And members are allowed to state their opinions in whatever manner they choose, provided they do not break the rules. Each member has his or her own unique way of giving opinions and it is not the intention of this site to censor the manner in which opinions are written. ...

ila is correct. It doesn't change the fact, though, that independent of the actual positions expressed, the "manner" is almost always a reflection of something important to the discussion. One learns a lot by paying attention to how, for instance (and especially), some in a discussion ignore points brought up in the discourse as rebuttal, and even more important, how some employ debating tricks to deflect attention away from those rebuttals.

[randolph]

I would like to suggest that this forum is primarily for entertainment purposes.
We are here to chat about tgirls and other issues of interest. If someone makes outrageous egregious statements, they can be ignored. For me it's interesting to see how other people think and how they put it into words.
I don't think we are here to present carefully crafted well documented presentations.
Just imagine we are friends at a local bar having a pint, ok? :)

[smc]

I would like to suggest that this forum is primarily for entertainment purposes.
We are here to chat about tgirls and other issues of interest. If someone makes outrageous egregious statements, they can be ignored. For me it's interesting to see how other people think and how they put it into words.
I don't think we are here to present carefully crafted well documented presentations.
Just imagine we are friends at a local bar having a pint, ok? :)

That doesn't change anything I wrote. Regardless of why people express opinions in the way that they do, it is still the case that how they do so is quite revealing. That goes for a discussion over a pint no more or less than one here, the primary difference being that at the bar no one can hide from what she or he says or how she or he says it.

[Be_my_nude]

I would prefer to see things Randolph's way, that is this as a Forum for fun, entertainment and fantasy / sexual stimulation. But he seems to shift stance too readily - one minute he takes a cynically Conservative position, next he views the Forum as having ideally a 'fun-factory' role.

But we have the additional arena available for hot debate. I can take it or leave it, can't I ? I do not have to be drawn into political polarisation or arguing about about the minutiae of contentious issues, do I?

But have fun, anyway, fellers if it makes you feel good ! Fran certainly likes to stir things up !
:respect:

[TracyCoxx]

The GOP cry goverment is to big ok then first lets end Bush's expanded goverment and do away with his homeland defence agency after all it's nothing but a make you feel a false sense of safty
second end corpate wellfare the oil companies need no help
third defense spending lets shut down some of our overseas bases and keep only the truely needed ones open
fourth end the BUSH BS tax cuts for the rich and go back to the 2000 tax rates and the world would not end
fifth do away with the tax welfare for big bussness and stop these tax agreements where the end up paying almost nothing talking about the tv ads that ask have you past due taxes and owe more then 10 grand call us and you'll pay pennies on the dollar
sixth cut the payroll of the house senate and whitehouse all three are way over paid and all deserve a 30% pay cut
seventh cut out taxpayers from have to pay for all former presidents to have a office and all expanes paid for from taxpayers,if BUSH CLINTON BUSH wants an office and staff well fine make them pay for it themselves
edightth end all aid to other countries the GOP claim we are broke so end aid for for outside countries
tenth stop paying illegals collage healthcare food housing school and all other goodies the leetch one too they don't belong here and these funds should go to US born citizens who need the help
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

1. No
2. Yes - and get out of their way when it comes to drilling in the gulf of mex
3. Yes - of course, the definition of 'truly needed' is up for debate
4. No, the government is too big because it's too big, not because we're not paying enough
5. No
6. I don't know what they make. Many of them don't deserve any kind of compensation. But as far as our debt, I'm sure whatever they make is far less than a drop in the bucket.
7. hmmm, it kind of makes sense to do this. We are not a country who just gives our former presidents the boot and sends them out on the street. Might not be such a bad idea for the current president though
8. Yes
10. Absolutely

scary... we actually agree on some things

[TracyCoxx]

Posted on a political forum. :respect:Your political orientation says more about you than about the state of society. Your political orientation does not correlate with your intelligence - your ability to analyze and solve problems, it has to do with your values, and values are not rational. Evolution produced liberals and conservatives, which means each have a claim to the validity of their values. If not, evolution would have gotten rid of them. Every ideology has a dark side and a light side. Liberals and socialists are dead on when they attack robber barons and anybody else who amasses wealth by organized theft. But at some point, they become parasitic on people who earn their wealth honestly, because they cannot take the ideological blinders off. Conservatives are dead on when they perceive and respond to external threats and protect the property of people who earn their wealth honestly, but at some point they try to create a permanent hereditary wealthy class, because they cannot take the ideological blinders off. Does any one try, really try, to understand their political opponents? Rarely. Its so much more comforting to call them idiots, or sadists, or masochists, or the embodiment of evil. Its too scary to try to really understand your political opponents - it feels too much like agreeing with them. Anyone who does not wish to trancend the blinders of their own ideology is just another dog howling at the moon, like the original poster. Trancending your own ideology is not the same as discarding your ideology, or adopting that of your opponent. It just makes you sound like less of a fool.
Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

[TracyCoxx]

And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.They are atheists, yet paradoxically, you are correct. I tried to argue with some of them that free will is an illusion using scientific observations. They pride themselves on being rational, so they should have considered the scientific evidence. Yet they also pride themselves on having free will. They couldn't get beyond the assertion that they have free will because well... they just do. Even though they acknowledged everything else non-living in the universe does not have free will. So evidently these atheists believed there was something supernatural going in within our brains.

[smc]

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

Attention all: this is a trap. Tracy Coxx wants you to believe that a national deficit, and borrowing, is the same as household debt and borrowing. In fact, the differences are profound.

Oh, and just to preempt it, Tracy Coxx will likely write: "Where did I write that?"

[TracyCoxx]

I am simply refering whats been said ever since Reagan, what is the ultimate objective of the conservatives movement. It is to dismantle the social welfare programs in the US.BS. All we ask for is a little personal responsibility from the public, and fiscal responsibility from the government.

We are here to chat about tgirls and other issues of interest. If someone makes outrageous egregious statements, they can be ignored. For me it's interesting to see how other people think and how they put it into words.
I don't think we are here to present carefully crafted well documented presentations.
Just imagine we are friends at a local bar having a pint, ok? :)

Cheers to that buddy :respect: And let's all buy another round for Fran :yes:

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

[randolph]

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Well, I agree, the government deficit is different from private debt for one simple reason, the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt. The government can get away with this for extended periods of time as long as the inflation does not become excessive (ie late 1970s). By printing money and borrowing more money the government can provide the populace with the services it desires and conduct the wars it desires.
Sooner or later there is a day of reckoning and the government either has to cut expenses or raise taxes or both. The Clinton administration succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels. Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed. Obama inherited a massive financial mess.
According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy. :innocent:

[smc]

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Were the United States never to incur debt as a nation except during a "national emergency," nearly everything -- including things Tracy Coxx probably would like to continue to have provided -- would disappear, unless:

a. "national emergency" were defined to include all those things
b. taxes were raised to their highest levels ever

Even the founders expected the United States to run a deficit. Read Alexander Hamilton. Countries operate this way; the argument that seeks to make it equivalent to continuing to use your personal credit care, whether that argument is stated explicitly or ghosted, is a diversion from the real discussion.

So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

[smc]

According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy. :innocent:

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

[randolph]

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President. :rolleyes:

[smc]

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President. :rolleyes:

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

[Enoch Root]

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

I dunno man. He seems serious to me. Although he is himself asinine what with all this birther bullshit.

[randolph]

January 29, 2011 | From an article in Alternet.org



Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html), “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.” :rolleyes:

Also--- http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/

[TracyCoxx]

the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt.Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

The Clinton administration [and republican congress] succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels.fixed it for you.

Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed.The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

[smc]

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by randolph http://forum.transladyboy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.transladyboy.com/showthread.php?p=181604#post181604)
the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt.



The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.

Tracy, Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices. Here in California, gas is over four dollars a gallon.

[Enoch Root]

Moral philosophy? Absurd. Unless impoverishing the working people is moral.

Democratic capitalism? That is an oxymoron.

[TracyCoxx]

The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.
...

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

Yes, the debt would have to be paid back in 'cheaper' dollars. But that doesn't mean the debt is smaller now. I don't have time to look up the actual numbers, but let me try and illustrate where I'm coming from. Let's define the dollar as 2008$ and 2009$. For this example, let's assume we have a balanced budget and the debt remains constant at 10 trillion 2008$.

So then in 2009 the treasury prints a trillion dollars. Is America suddenly richer? No.

11 2009$ = 10 2008$ (again, not real numbers, just an example)

So in 2009 the debt, which remained constant, is now 11 trillion 2009$. Yes the dollars are now cheaper dollars. i.e. 1 2009$ = .91 2008$. But all that means is we have to pay more cheaper dollars to pay off the debt.

So the dollar amount of the debt DOES go up (in the new value of the dollar). But the value of the debt remains the same. (assuming a balanced budget). The value of the dollar drops, so in turn we owe other countries more, so the overall value (in terms of what we owe other countries) remains the same.

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices.The money poured into the economy is not negated by rising prices. Like you said in the same quote, it causes rising prices.

So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

[smc]

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

... So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

And the wait continues. Tracy Coxx logs back on, reposts this statement about national emergencies, but won't tell us what Tracy Coxx would actually cut of substance from the federal budget. It's political cowardice, no different from the ideologues who Tracy Coxx defends either implicitly or explicitly.

[randolph]

Tracy It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency. During the great depression, the Republicans were very resistant to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy. Consequently many banks failed and millions of people lost their savings (no FDIC). FDR finally did get a modest stimulus going but it was inadequate to really get recovery. It took WWII to get the country back on its feet with a four trillion dollar war debt!
We managed that huge debt and the economy grew rapidly at the same time the maximum tax rate for the rich was seventy percent! During those years we were rebuilding the free world including Japan and Germany. Times were good and the middle class prospered.
Now days the cost of an aging population, exploding retirement costs, obscene military expenses and the loss of working class jobs is threatening the country with bankruptcy. The government keeps borrowing more and more money to cover expenses and stimulate the economy. Why? Because we have a highly distorted tax system. The rich are not paying their fair share, if they did we would not have these massive deficits.
Capitalism is based on economic growth. Growth depends on a populace that can afford to buy what the capital investment produces. If we screw the populace with a distorted tax system that favors the rich then capitalism will fail.

[smc]

FYI for all those who follow this thread: Tracy Coxx was on four hours ago (I write this at 10:38 pm EDT in the United States) and has yet to answer the pressing question. Perhaps Tracy Coxx has been delayed by some kind of "national emergency"?

[randolph]

Tracy The money poured into the economy is not negated by rising prices. Like you said in the same quote, it causes rising prices.

So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

It appears that Tracy is posing the question to other followers of the thread. Is it necessary for her to answer her own question?

[smc]

Tracy

It appears that Tracy is posing the question to other followers of the thread. Is it necessary for her to answer her own question?

I asked a different question of Tracy. But seriously, Randolph, I know you could figure that out. Don't you want to know what Tracy would cut instead of simply listening to the repetition of this ideological "national emergency" tripe?

[smc]

I asked a different question of Tracy. But seriously, Randolph, I know you could figure that out. Don't you want to know what Tracy would cut instead of simply listening to the repetition of this ideological "national emergency" tripe?

At issue here is intellectual honesty. It is simple to throw out a question such as that which Tracy Coxx has now posed multiple times, especiall when done so demagogically. But the question begs an answer to my question from the person who poses it; otherwise, it is nothing but dissembling rhetoric.

Those who now sit in the federal legislature and argue against spending without taking real positions on real spending cuts, and who pretend that there is some kind of magical mathematics that wizards like Harry Potter can somehow make work that allows all the problems of the budget to be solved without raising a single cent of new revenue, are intellectually dishonest. So, too, are their acolytes.

Tracy Coxx, answer the question: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

[TracyCoxx]

Tracy During the great depression, the Republicans were very resistant to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy. Consequently many banks failed and millions of people lost their savings (no FDIC). FDR finally did get a modest stimulus going but it was inadequate to really get recovery. It took WWII to get the country back on its feet with a four trillion dollar war debt!
$4 trillion war debt? Where did you get that? Besides, during the Great Depression, various political sides will have different approaches to the problem. Democrats will want to spend ourselves out of debt. Republicans will want to cut spending and tighten our belt. A Great Depression is a national emergency though, and contrary to what TLB staff will have you believe I'm not talking about national emergencies. I'm talking about the word you bolded in my quote in your post: routinely. So again, in normal times, is it ever a good practice to routinely run a deficit? That is the pressing question.

btw, in the attached image, you'll see that the debt didn't reach $4 trillion until about 1990.

[randolph]

The WWII cost has been estimated to be about five trillion dollars, most of it borrowed dollars (bonds). The war debt exceeded the GDP, the current debt has yet to exceed the GDP.
Its important to keep in mind that we have a far larger economy now than we had in 1945. The skyrocketing debt after Clinton has been the result of irresponsible management of the country by our government. Free-market ideology and endless wars is destroying our country.

[TracyCoxx]

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?
Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?

[smc]

Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?

Tracy Coxx, your refusal to state what YOU would cut from the budget reveals that your position is one of political cowardice. Only here, where you don't have to face anyone, can you be asked a question in a political discussion, over and over, and simply ignore it.

[randolph]

Tracy Coxx, your refusal to state what YOU would cut from the budget reveals that your position is one of political cowardice. Only here, where you don't have to face anyone, can you be asked a question in a political discussion, over and over, and simply ignore it.

I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.

[transjen]

Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?


I believe most sain rashional people will aggree that a balanced budget is a most reguardless if they are to the left or the right or in the middle
But the idea of how to reach it is where everyone disagrees
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

I believe most sain rashional people will aggree that a balanced budget is a most reguardless if they are to the left or the right or in the middle
But the idea of how to reach it is where everyone disagrees
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen
Granted, the method of balancing the budget is where it gets tricky. There's nothing empirical there and that's where ideologies come in. We'll see how many sane, rational people are in congress when the vote comes up for the balanced budget amendment. I'm not holding my breath...

[ila]

...A Great Depression is a national emergency though, and contrary to what TLB staff will have you believe I'm not talking about national emergencies...

This is the second time that you have posted TLB staff. Who are you referring to? The only staff of TLB is the site owner. If you are referring to one specific person then mention that person. Don't make blanket statements lumping several people into one group when you only intend to refer to one person.:frown:

[TracyCoxx]

This is the second time that you have posted TLB staff. Who are you referring to? The only staff of TLB is the site owner. If you are referring to one specific person then mention that person. Don't make blanket statements lumping several people into one group when you only intend to refer to one person.:frown:

By TLB staff I mean moderator. Not you though.

[ila]

By TLB staff I mean moderator. Not you though.

Thankyou, Tracy.

[smc]

I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.

Name-calling would be calling Tracy Coxx a "political coward," but referring to the posture one adopts in which one is unwilling to defend one's position, but rather hides behind the anonymity of the Internet, and even now continues to do so rather than answer the reasonable, legitimate guestion that has been raised, is a "position ... of political cowardice." That is NOT name-calling.

But the most important point here is the smokescreen. My question is not about "converting conservative into a liberal or vice versa," but rather to reveal the hypocrisy of the position Tracy Coxx posits with the continual asking of the question about budget deficits and national emergencies. It's a fine position to take in the abstract, but Tracy Coxx refuses, over and over again, to take it in the concrete, i.e., to state what is and is not covered by a "national emergency" and to state what Tracy Coxx would cut from the budget.

[smc]

Granted, the method of balancing the budget is where it gets tricky. There's nothing empirical there and that's where ideologies come in. We'll see how many sane, rational people are in congress when the vote comes up for the balanced budget amendment. I'm not holding my breath...

What would you CUT, Tracy Coxx? Are you willing to take a position? I am.

I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

[randolph]

SMC I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

Very well said SMC.
I believe the country is beginning to wake up to the ongoing outrage of how conservatives want to spend our money and control our lives.

[Enoch Root]

What would you CUT, Tracy Coxx? Are you willing to take a position? I am.

I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

I'm glad someone wrote something like this, finally. Where Tracy and her ilk chip away at my faith in humanity as they go about destroying lives, this post from you smc accomplishes the reverse. Yet the question remains: how many others in the US believe as you do? How many are not selfish monsters who begrudge a good life and real freedom to their brothers?

[Sissy Maid Lucy]

Economically, you cannot slash Defence spending as it is a major employer, both in terms of military personel, and engineering, manufacturing and related industries. Defence is a 'clever' part of the economy as it requires extensive R&D, and the technology then flows into general use.

Remember that Germany grew her economy in the 1930s by two main methods: nation-building (infrastructure etc) and military expenditure. This gave them a massive advantage early in WWII.

What the USA needs to do is get the money-go-round happening again. And reduce the power of the states and adopt a small-government policy (as governments waste money). And just chisel away at all government expenditure, trying to find at least a 15% saving in every department. And cut subsidies for agriculture to make your farmers almost as efficient as us Australians...

[smc]

Economically, you cannot slash Defence spending as it is a major employer, both in terms of military personel, and engineering, manufacturing and related industries. Defence is a 'clever' part of the economy as it requires extensive R&D, and the technology then flows into general use.

Remember that Germany grew her economy in the 1930s by two main methods: nation-building (infrastructure etc) and military expenditure. This gave them a massive advantage early in WWII.

What the USA needs to do is get the money-go-round happening again. And reduce the power of the states and adopt a small-government policy (as governments waste money). And just chisel away at all government expenditure, trying to find at least a 15% saving in every department. And cut subsidies for agriculture to make your farmers almost as efficient as us Australians...

Thanks for reminding me that I left off my list the ridiculous subsidies given to agri-business (not small family farmers so much as mega-corporations in the agricultural sector) either to grow things we don't really use or NOT to grow things we could use.

As for your point about slashing defense spending, I could not disagree more. The solution is simple: reemploy people in public works and human services, and watch the economy soar as the social benefits accrue to everyone, not just some rich military-industrial-complex fat cats and the politicians in their pockets.

[TracyCoxx]

I'm glad someone wrote something like this, finally. Where Tracy and her ilk chip away at my faith in humanity as they go about destroying lives, this post from you smc accomplishes the reverse. Yet the question remains: how many others in the US believe as you do? How many are not selfish monsters who begrudge a good life and real freedom to their brothers?

I'm not sure how much of the $691 Billion in defense a 'majority' means, but let's say you guys want to cut all of it. All the cuts listed above total up to $797 billion. Guess what folks, the 2010 budget has a $1.342 trillion deficit. You've eliminated the entire frickin DoD, military operations/wars, and %80 of Homeland security. You still have over $545 billion left to go, just to balance the budget.

For the past week, despite attempts to sidetrack the discussion, I've been trying to see if we can at least arrive at one thing we can agree on: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

There has been no objection to this from any side of the debate. Yet you guys have declared a budget cut victory when there's still a deficit. There's obviously no military threat to the country or you wouldn't have tossed out the DoD (certainly no lives destroyed in that move are there Enoch Root. Those 4 million highly trained people and their families will be just fine in a job market where 15 million are already looking for work). So why do you guys think there should still be a deficit? What's the emergency?

[smc]

I'm not sure how much of the $691 Billion in defense a 'majority' means, but let's say you guys want to cut all of it. All the cuts listed above total up to $797 billion. Guess what folks, the 2010 budget has a $1.342 trillion deficit. You've eliminated the entire frickin DoD, military operations/wars, and %80 of Homeland security. You still have over $545 billion left to go, just to balance the budget.

For the past week, despite attempts to sidetrack the discussion, I've been trying to see if we can at least arrive at one thing we can agree on: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

There has been no objection to this from any side of the debate. Yet you guys have declared a budget cut victory when there's still a deficit. There's obviously no military threat to the country or you wouldn't have tossed out the DoD (certainly no lives destroyed in that move are there Enoch Root. Those 4 million people and their families will be just fine). So why do you guys think there should still be a deficit? What's the emergency?

I am in favor of a federal government running deficits, just as the founder intended, because revenues at a given time may not meet necessary social outlays. But Tracy Coxx dissembles, as usual, what I wrote. I included raising taxes on the corporations and the wealthy. Every economist acknowledges that simply restoring the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to what it was before the so-called "Bush tax cuts" would eliminate the current problem. I would go much, much further, to eliminate every loophole that allows corporations such as GE to pay no taxes. And eliminate the oil subsidies.

You can try to be clever with your writing, Tracy Coxx, but cleverness works best when you use what people actually say, not what you wish they had because it works to your advantage.

[smc]

... For the past week, despite attempts to sidetrack the discussion, I've been trying to see if we can at least arrive at one thing we can agree on: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

There has been no objection to this from any side of the debate. ...

By the way, I suggest you look up "sidetrack" in a dictionary. This accusation is being hurled against me (the "TLB staff" you previously referred to, but were finally told to use a name -- which you can't bring yourself to do for some reason). I have asked you to take this abstract discussion and make it concrete by defining what constitutes an "emergency" and what YOU would cut. If that is sidetracking, I'd like to know what it is you think that word means.

[Enoch Root]

There has been no objection to this from any side of the debate. Yet you guys have declared a budget cut victory when there's still a deficit. There's obviously no military threat to the country or you wouldn't have tossed out the DoD (certainly no lives destroyed in that move are there Enoch Root. Those 4 million highly trained people and their families will be just fine in a job market where 15 million are already looking for work). So why do you guys think there should still be a deficit? What's the emergency?

The only reason those people have those jobs is because of a perpetual war economy and as smc already said: "The solution is simple: reemploy people in public works and human services, and watch the economy soar as the social benefits accrue to everyone, not just some rich military-industrial-complex fat cats and the politicians in their pockets."

[Enoch Root]

Sidetrack the discussion Tracy? That requires a discussion to begin with and it is clear that this thread was not started with the purpose of discussion.

[TracyCoxx]

"The solution is simple: reemploy people in public works and human services, and watch the economy soar as the social benefits accrue to everyone, not just some rich military-industrial-complex fat cats and the politicians in their pockets."
How much do you think it would cost the government & tax payers to employ nearly 4 million people in public works and human services? How would the economy soar? Would America be producing more? No.

[Enoch Root]

How much do you think it would cost the government & tax payers to employ nearly 4 million people in public works and human services? How would the economy soar? Would America be producing more? No.

For god's sake Tracy those are SMC's words! Stop going after me because you can't address smc like an adult.

[smc]

How much do you think it would cost the government & tax payers to employ nearly 4 million people in public works and human services? How would the economy soar? Would America be producing more? No.

For god's sake Tracy those are SMC's words! Stop going after me because you can't address smc like an adult.

Yes, Enoch Root, those were my words.

And Tracy Coxx, since you asked: I will bet my right arm, which you, Tracy Coxx, may personally come and cut off with a dull blade if I'm wrong, that the overwhelming majority of the 15 million people who have been out of work would gladly take a good-paying, socially useful job and pay taxes as employed workers, and support the elimination of the giveaways to the rich and the corporations so that employing them will not do as you say.

The way out of the economic problems of this country is not to combine business as usual -- i.e., tax breaks for the wealthy, no taxes on corporations, and corporate welfare -- and busting the backs of working people, but to stimulate the economy with spending that is socially useful. Nearly every economist recognizes this, except for the pseudo-economists in the employ of the corporations and their legislative minions. And even they have a hard time when they put out their lies.

[franalexes]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
smc got his own words used against him!

Hot Damn Tracy, you're good.

If stimulus is good, why didn't it work the first time?

I paid 25 cents in taxes and got 20 cents back in stimulus and I'm supposed to feel richer. I think that's the theory.

[randolph]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
smc got his own words used against him!

Hot Damn Tracy, you're good.

If stimulus is good, why didn't it work the first time?

I paid 25 cents in taxes and got 20 cents back in stimulus and I'm supposed to feel richer. I think that's the theory.

OMG! Fran has jumped into the hot tub!

Now I wonder when Ila is going to show up and dowse everyone with cold water. :lol:

[smc]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
smc got his own words used against him!

Hot Damn Tracy, you're good.

If stimulus is good, why didn't it work the first time?

I paid 25 cents in taxes and got 20 cents back in stimulus and I'm supposed to feel richer. I think that's the theory.

As fran well knows, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.But it makes for a good post, I guess, when genuine, meaningful discussion is not the coin of the realm in a discussion thread.

[Sissy Maid Lucy]

As for your point about slashing defense spending, I could not disagree more. The solution is simple: reemploy people in public works and human services, and watch the economy soar as the social benefits accrue to everyone, not just some rich military-industrial-complex fat cats and the politicians in their pockets.

The problem with that argument is that military industry jobs are 'clever' jobs - minimum of a bachelor-degree. And it is about new science and technology advancement. Public works and human services are generally not going to employ the intellectuals - there are only so many bridges that can be built! A school friend of mine here in Australia did a degree in electronic and mechanical engineering... 80% of his classmates work in military-related jobs, 15% in mining, 5% automotive. And there is a surprisingly large amount of technology transfer from the military engineering to mining and auto.

Granted, the USA does spend a heck of a lot of dough on military engagements though...

[Sissy Maid Lucy]

Thanks for reminding me that I left off my list the ridiculous subsidies given to agri-business (not small family farmers so much as mega-corporations in the agricultural sector) either to grow things we don't really use or NOT to grow things we could use.

Oh, and why should small family farmers in the USA (or Europe) get subsidies? Australian and New Zealand farmers get no subsidies so we live by the manta "get bigger and cleverer or get out". That's why we run quad-roadtrains, 80ft wide airseeders and 150ft wide spray rigs so we can have big farms without employing labor. That's the joy of capitalism, minimal government help means minimal government interference and therefore maximum productivity.

[smc]

The problem with that argument is that military industry jobs are 'clever' jobs - minimum of a bachelor-degree. And it is about new science and technology advancement. Public works and human services are generally not going to employ the intellectuals - there are only so many bridges that can be built! A school friend of mine here in Australia did a degree in electronic and mechanical engineering... 80% of his classmates work in military-related jobs, 15% in mining, 5% automotive. And there is a surprisingly large amount of technology transfer from the military engineering to mining and auto.

Granted, the USA does spend a heck of a lot of dough on military engagements though...

By public works, I don't necessarily mean building bridges. There is no reason why public employment can't be "high-tech."

Oh, and why should small family farmers in the USA (or Europe) get subsidies? Australian and New Zealand farmers get no subsidies so we live by the manta "get bigger and cleverer or get out". That's why we run quad-roadtrains, 80ft wide airseeders and 150ft wide spray rigs so we can have big farms without employing labor. That's the joy of capitalism, minimal government help means minimal government interference and therefore maximum productivity.

I wrote that I am against subsidies for farmers. Of course, if public funds were used to purchase foodstuffs from farmers to help feed the world, rather than public subsidies to prop up "markets," that would be a different thing altogether.

[franalexes]

As fran well knows, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.But it makes for a good post, I guess, when genuine, meaningful discussion is not the coin of the realm in a discussion thread.

As a member of the TLB staff well knows, I am capable of expressing two or more thoughts at the same time. In my previous post. the first two lines are in reference somewhat to Tracy. The next two lines are independant of that and are my thoughts alone. There was no intention to mislead that they were thoughts of someone else.

No member of the TLB staff should imply what I know or do not know. I am the worlds foremost authority on what Fran well knows.

touche~

Goodmorning smc. Springtime in Maine this morning is under a lace of ice. In the sunlight it is frantastic.:yes:

[Enoch Root]

So we’re not going to get an answer from Tracy concerning spending cuts? I keep logging on in the vain hope that Tracy will stop ignoring reasonable requests.

[TracyCoxx]

Another benefit of the 2010 election:
US House Backs More Offshore Drilling Amid Gasoline-Price Debate (http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/12/house-backs-offshore-drilling-amid-gasoline-price-debate/)

The measure requires the Obama administration to open up areas known to have the greatest oil and natural gas reserves and make them available for leasing. It represents the last of three bills, sponsored by Republicans, that are aimed at speeding up and expanding offshore drilling.

Obama's campaign office, I mean the media, was only able to protect him for so long as gas prices went from $1.83 to $4 over his term with the 2012 campaign coming and the House's bills to force him to end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not that that will reverse high gas prices anytime soon, but it will definitely help in the future and probably does more for our economy than his other brilliant idea of funding Brazil's offshore oil industry.

[transjen]

Another benefit of the 2010 election:
US House Backs More Offshore Drilling Amid Gasoline-Price Debate (http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/12/house-backs-offshore-drilling-amid-gasoline-price-debate/)

The measure requires the Obama administration to open up areas known to have the greatest oil and natural gas reserves and make them available for leasing. It represents the last of three bills, sponsored by Republicans, that are aimed at speeding up and expanding offshore drilling.

Obama's campaign office, I mean the media, was only able to protect him for so long as gas prices went from $1.83 to $4 over his term with the 2012 campaign coming and the House's bills to force him to end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not that that will reverse high gas prices anytime soon, but it will definitely help in the future and probably does more for our economy than his other brilliant idea of funding Brazil's offshore oil industry.And yet agian you forgot about how gas hit over $4 where W was in the White House but somehow i'll be you will blam it on the Dems

Now who ever believes that drill baby drill will bring the price of gas to under a dollar a gallon stand on your head and spin

Drilling more at best will reduce prices when hell freezes over we need more refinearies as we are at peak out put now
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Another benefit of the 2010 election:
US House Backs More Offshore Drilling Amid Gasoline-Price Debate (http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/05/12/house-backs-offshore-drilling-amid-gasoline-price-debate/)

The measure requires the Obama administration to open up areas known to have the greatest oil and natural gas reserves and make them available for leasing. It represents the last of three bills, sponsored by Republicans, that are aimed at speeding up and expanding offshore drilling.

Obama's campaign office, I mean the media, was only able to protect him for so long as gas prices went from $1.83 to $4 over his term with the 2012 campaign coming and the House's bills to force him to end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not that that will reverse high gas prices anytime soon, but it will definitely help in the future and probably does more for our economy than his other brilliant idea of funding Brazil's offshore oil industry.

Does what I've bolded above officially mean that "Fox News" is no longer part of the media? :lol:

[ila]

...Now who ever believes that drill baby drill will bring the price of gas to under a dollar a gallon stand on your head and spin

Drilling more at best will reduce prices when hell freezes over we need more refinearies as we are at peak out put now
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

Excellent post.:respect: You are right on the mark. The price of gas will come down when the oil companies get tired of raping and gouging the consumer and are no longer interested in making obscene profits.

[randolph]

Excellent post.:respect: You are right on the mark. The price of gas will come down when the oil companies get tired of raping and gouging the consumer and are no longer interested in making obscene profits.

Correct, there is no shortage of oil or refinery capacity.
The price is manipulated by the commodity traders in collusion with the oil companies. Oh by the way our Congress gives the oil companies big tax breaks. :censored:

We could beat this game by driving less and driving slower. It has been estimated that if everyone drove 55 mph, we would not need any oil from Saudi Arabia. Do you hear anybody in government promoting this? Now it's drill baby drill which is totally ludicrous, pure political BS. :frown:

[Enoch Root]

Excellent post.:respect: You are right on the mark. The price of gas will come down when the oil companies get tired of raping and gouging the consumer and are no longer interested in making obscene profits.

Which will only happen when we are all dead and underwater. But what else can be expected from a system that does not cater to human needs but only caters to the rich and their sympathizers?

[TracyCoxx]

And yet agian you forgot about how gas hit over $4 where W was in the White House but somehow i'll be you will blam it on the DemsOh I remember. Who could forget the way the press went on and on about it. But then, that was a republican president.

Now who ever believes that drill baby drill will bring the price of gas to under a dollar a gallon stand on your head and spin

Drilling more at best will reduce prices when hell freezes over we need more refinearies as we are at peak out put nowNo spinning here. And yes, we need more refineries as well.

We could beat this game by driving less and driving slower. It has been estimated that if everyone drove 55 mph, we would not need any oil from Saudi Arabia. Do you hear anybody in government promoting this? Now it's drill baby drill which is totally ludicrous, pure political BS. :frown:You can put up 55 mph speed limit signs [ptewwey] but honestly, would anyone drive 55? Would you drive 55? Or would you fear that you'd be rear ended? Back to reality now...

[TracyCoxx]

Huckabee: 'I Will Not Seek the Republican Nomination'

YES!

[GRH]

A working class man that votes for a Republican is like a chicken that votes for Colonel Sanders.

[randolph]

Oh I remember. Who could forget the way the press went on and on about it. But then, that was a republican president.

No spinning here. And yes, we need more refineries as well.

You can put up 55 mph speed limit signs [ptewwey] but honestly, would anyone drive 55? Would you drive 55? Or would you fear that you'd be rear ended? Back to reality now...

I drive 55 mph now, for your information. I haven't been rear ended yet.
You can save 15 to 20 % on gas by slowing down. At four plus dollars a gallon, that's significant.

Also, what exactly is that officer doing? :coupling: :lol:

[transjen]

You can put up 55 mph speed limit signs [ptewwey] but honestly, would anyone drive 55? Would you drive 55? Or would you fear that you'd be rear ended? Back to reality now...

Have to agree here, and my driving record has the tickets to prove it, and even with gas hitting $4 i refuse to buy a toy electric car i'm keeping my Mustang

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[Enoch Root]

Have to agree here, and my driving record has the tickets to prove it, and even with gas hitting $4 i refuse to buy a toy electric car i'm keeping my Mustang

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Why agree with Tracy when there is no need for it? Tracy's "reality" depends on thinking only of yourself in big and small ways. Why would you want to imitate Tracy?

[franalexes]

Remember Obama's cash-for-clunkers?
On average, peolple traded up to a heavier vehicle that burned more gas.

[GRH]

Is that you just speculating...Or do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

[Enoch Root]

Why agree with Tracy when there is no need for it? Tracy's "reality" depends on thinking only of yourself in big and small ways. Why would you want to imitate Tracy?

I was talking about driving 55 mph.

[Tread]

I drive 55 mph now, for your information. I haven't been rear ended yet.
You can save 15 to 20 % on gas by slowing down. At four plus dollars a gallon, that's significant.

More significant than the speed is the car, engine (how big, diesel or petrol), transmission, and how you drive the car.
If you drive in the right gear for the demand, accelerate in short time at optimum rpm of the engine, and many other things. But you in the US use mostly automatic gear shifts I think, shifting manual is more fun, gives you more control and allows you to save fuel.

If you drive real efficient, with an efficient car, you can drive 80 mph (130 km/h) by using less then 47 mpg (5l/100km). Slower driving does less than efficient driving, and that can also be faster in some cases. That?s not average and not with every car but possible.

[randolph]

More significant than the speed is the car, engine (how big, diesel or petrol), transmission, and how you drive the car.
If you drive in the right gear for the demand, accelerate in short time at optimum rpm of the engine, and many other things. But you in the US use mostly automatic gear shifts I think, shifting manual is more fun, gives you more control and allows you to save fuel.

If you drive real efficient, with an efficient car, you can drive 80 mph (130 km/h) by using less then 47 mpg (5l/100km). Slower driving does less than efficient driving, and that can also be faster in some cases. That?s not average and not with every car but possible.

Certainly, efficient driving in important. Floorbording to fifty five is not going to cut it. By the way, I drive a VW Jetta, it gets 40 mpg around town and fifty mpg on the freeway, if I drive conservatively.

[smc]

Certainly, efficient driving in important. Floorbording to fifty five is not going to cut it. By the way, I drive a VW Jetta, it gets 40 mpg around town and fifty mpg on the freeway, if I drive conservatively.


I don't own a car. I use ZipCar when I need one. Saves on EVERYTHING. Of course, it is not an option open to all, especially depending on where one lives.

[TracyCoxx]

Have to agree here, and my driving record has the tickets to prove it, and even with gas hitting $4 i refuse to buy a toy electric car i'm keeping my Mustang

:yes: Jerseygirl JenI'm a mustang driver myself, so absolutely. And why shouldn't you keep your mustang? We have plenty of untapped oil here in the US. Let the good times roll :respect:

[Tread]

Certainly, efficient driving in important. Floorbording to fifty five is not going to cut it. By the way, I drive a VW Jetta, it gets 40 mpg around town and fifty mpg on the freeway, if I drive conservatively.


I don?t know what engine you have but it is very good for petrol and good for the diesel. If you have the petrol engine then you are nearly at the limit of fuel saving, else it could get you even more mpg, but your mpg is still good.

With my over 10 years old small petrol car I get about 47 mpg, all mixed a bit city, motorway and highway.

If you drive real efficient, with an efficient car, you can drive 80 mph (130 km/h) by using less then 47 mpg (5l/100km.

I mixed l/100km and mpg, I meant using less than 5l/100km and getting more than 47mpg.

[transjen]

You guys are forgetting a few factors on engines
I do all the proper maintence to my Mustang i keep her tuned up i change filters i keep my tires at the proper inflation and a lot of people don't so there gas friendly cars probalily get less gas mileage then my v8 Mustang
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

You guys are forgetting a few factors on engines
I do all the proper maintence to my Mustang i keep her tuned up i change filters i keep my tires at the proper inflation and a lot of people don't so there gas friendly cars probalily get less gas mileage then my v8 Mustang
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Hey Jen, I love Mustangs and had one years ago.
My first car was a 1935 Dodge coupe. I learned how to do everything from the brakes on up. I even painted and reupholstered it.
Now I have a VW Jetta diesel that requires service every ten thousand miles. I wouldn't touch anything under the hood other than the dipstick. So much for personal car maintenance.
I miss the good old days when a car was almost like a lover, something that needed lots of tinkering. ;)

[parr]

Hey Jen, I love Mustangs and had one years ago.
My first car was a 1935 Dodge coupe. I learned how to do everything from the brakes on up. I even painted and reupholstered it.
Now I have a VW Jetta diesel that requires service every ten thousand miles. I wouldn't touch anything under the hood other than the dipstick. So much for personal car maintenance.
I miss the good old days when a car was almost like a lover, something that needed lots of tinkering. ;)

I did my own work years ago, but now you have to be a genius
with a computer plugged into it.:confused:

[Chichester]

I'm a mustang driver myself We have plenty of untapped oil here in the US. Let the good times roll :respect:

I have a Honda Civic I got with the cash for clunkers program $12,700 out the door. I miss my 383 cu. in. Plymouth, but times change, adjust or rust. These damn gas companies will charge us an arm and a leg for gas no matter where it comes from, they don't care. Way past time to ween ourselves off gas.

[Chichester]

I did my own work years ago, but now you have to be a genius
with a computer plugged into it.:confused:

Most cars now are computers with a car built around it. I remember when fixing a starter motor was 35 bucks and two bolts. Now...800 bucks!
PS '35 coupe-very cool:turnon:

[TracyCoxx]

Like Pelosi says, We'll find out what is in the Health Care bill after we pass the Health Care bill.

President Barack Obama?s health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

That?s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.

Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.

?I don?t generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn?t make sense,? Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.

It?s almost like allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps, he suggested.

?This is a situation that got no attention at all,? added Foster. ?And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ? we need to do something about this.?

[TracyCoxx]

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

[franalexes]

Dear Tracy Coxx
Have you not learned yet that stating facts is so infuriating to those that can't see them?:respect:

( I gotta find a jet that will get me to Texas.:yes:)

[TracyCoxx]

( I gotta find a jet that will get me to Texas.:yes:)

hehe, there's got to be a tax break for that :turnon:

[franalexes]

hehe, there's got to be a tax break for that :turnon:

If I ever meet you; I'm all business.;) Trust me.:heart:

[smc]

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

Dear Tracy Coxx
Have you not learned yet that stating facts is so infuriating to those that can't see them?:respect: ...

There is an assumption in this thread and elsewhere that political positions are somehow binary; in other words, you either support Obama or you support the Republicans. This may be the case for some, but I have made clear time and again that I do not support Obama and I do not support the Republicans.

1. Obama's stimulus plan had some good elements, but it was mostly a sham. Tax breaks were included in it, but there is little to no evidence over the long history of capitalism that they stimulate an economy in crisis -- as every economist without a political agenda knows. The corporate jet bullshit shouldn't have been there, but look back in the history of the debate over the stimulus and see from whence that proposal came.

2. The executive branch wastes huge amounts of taxpayer money on perks for the president. This waste is shameful, and any president -- Democrat or Republican -- who takes advantage of these perks and hides behind the Secret Service insisting it is necessary is stealing from the American people. Why should a president or his family get a taxpayer-funded vacation?

Of course, every president is stealing from the American people. The fact is that there is no Republican that is better than any Democrat on this issue. They are all crooks in this regard.

3. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with any spending that will happen in the minute after it is raised or in the next fifty years after it is raised. Every grownup politician knows this. Like it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus to keep the United States from defaulting on money it owes. The debt ceiling was raised 17 times during the Reagan presidency, and the amount of the ceiling tripled. In a November 16, 1983 letter to Sen. Howard Baker, the Republican leader, Reagan wrote to ask for his help in getting the debt ceiling raised:

"The full consequences of a default?or even the serious prospect of default?by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."

The debt ceiling was raised 4 times during Clinton's presidency, mostly because the United States enjoyed a surplus during much of his two terms. Under George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was raised at least 7 times.

All these increases happened with bipartisan support. The standard practice is to posture and then make sure it is raised when the vote comes.

These are indisputable facts. The current debate is more political posturing by people who are simply making stuff up. The debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with future spending levels. NOT A SINGLE THING. That is why the talking heads on all sides refer to those who behind the scenes are expected not to let the debt ceiling increase fail are spoken of as "the adults in the room." They may even posture, but with the door closed and out of the light of day they don't make up their own facts.

[GRH]

Exactly smc. The notion that they want to raise the debt ceiling so they can increase the pace of spending is completely bogus. We do not make enough in tax receipts to cover our EXISTING obligations. These obligations were made by past Congresses-- Republican and Democrat.

As I mentioned in the other thread, there is a notion that we can simply use tax receipts to pay the interest on the debt. While this may not lead to a default to creditors...It most certainly leads us to default on some other obligation. I pointed out that if we follow this strategy we'll be canceling payment to some of our Social Security and Medicare recipients. Tracy said nobody was proposing this...But in fact, anyone who is arguing against raising the debt ceiling-- this is exactly what they are proposing. Because we don't make enough in tax receipts to pay obligations that were accrued in the past (and not by this administration). If you only spend the existing tax receipts-- you've got to pick what obligation you're not going to honor (interest on the debt, federal and veteran pensions, Medicare benefits, Social Security benefits, etc.).

Interestingly, there has been talk recently that the debt ceiling isn't even Constitutional. There is a clause in 14th Amendment which essentially says that the obligations of the government shall not be questioned-- and an arbitrary mechanism which prevents the honoring of the obligations would likely not be Constitutional.

[transjen]

OK here we go the tea party and most of the reg GOP are screaming goverment is to big and we need to end the evil goverment emplyees
Now while some may agree i say lets call there bluff and start cutting from the top on down
Smaller goverment my way
1] cut the sen down to 50, 1 sen per state
2] cut the house down to 100 reps 2 per state
3] since the GOP love says everyone sould buy there own health ins and goverment ran ins is commieism the the sen ands house must give up the free goverment ins and buy and pay for there own ins
4]Tea party budgets cuts should start at the top by cutting the sen and house members over inflated paychecks
so how many yes votes will be coming from the GOP and tea partyers?
i bet there won't be any
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

OK here we go the tea party and most of the reg GOP are screaming goverment is to big and we need to end the evil goverment emplyees
Now while some may agree i say lets call there bluff and start cutting from the top on down
Smaller goverment my way
1] cut the sen down to 50, 1 sen per state
2] cut the house down to 100 reps 2 per state
3] since the GOP love says everyone sould buy there own health ins and goverment ran ins is commieism the the sen ands house must give up the free goverment ins and buy and pay for there own ins
4]Tea party budgets cuts should start at the top by cutting the sen and house members over inflated paychecks
so how many yes votes will be coming from the GOP and tea partyers?
i bet there won't be any
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Unfortunately, we are "governed" primarily by wealthy people, especially in the Senate, so cutting the paychecks of these useless sycophants (Republicans and Democrats alike) and forcing them to buy their own healthcare will not make an ideological dent in their thinking.

[parr]

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

Uh, let me quess,"we are".:rolleyes:

[randolph]

The Sunday LA Times has an article about the BMW parts supply warehouse in Ontario California. Management announced that most of their employees would be laid off and a management company would take over hiring employees. Most of the workers have spent many years working there at reasonable middle class wages. They are buying houses, cars and trying to send their kids to college. They will be replaced with minimum wage unskilled workers!
The US taxpayers loaned BMW over three billion dollars during the crash to keep them afloat. BMW could never get away with this in Germany. This is Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman at their best. Teapartiers wake up, your corporate buddies (Kock brothers, ect) are systematically destroying what the founding fathers created, a revolution to escape tyranny. We now have the tyranny of the corporation, far more egregious than the King of England. Happy Fourth of July.

[GRH]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/15/digging-into-the-u-s-budget-what-we-spend-and-how/

I heard Rush Limbaugh babbling about how there's no debt crisis because we have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. But he was not disputing (he even quoted) the fact that Timothy Geithner has said that not raising the debt ceiling will result in a 44% reduction in spending.

The link above details how the federal budget is allocated. If you were to entirely cut every dollar that goes to Discretionary/Other, Education, and Social Safety Net programs...You'd have only cut spending by 26%. So if we're going to bear a 44% reduction in spending...Where are you going to cut the other 18%? Well, the pie chart doesn't leave a lot of other attractive options. You'd have to cut benefits to today's Social Security or Medicare recipients...Or the hallowed department of defense. This is why it's disingenious for people to act like we have enough tax receipts to cover our obligations.

[randolph]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/15/digging-into-the-u-s-budget-what-we-spend-and-how/

I heard Rush Limbaugh babbling about how there's no debt crisis because we have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. But he was not disputing (he even quoted) the fact that Timothy Geithner has said that not raising the debt ceiling will result in a 44% reduction in spending.

The link above details how the federal budget is allocated. If you were to entirely cut every dollar that goes to Discretionary/Other, Education, and Social Safety Net programs...You'd have only cut spending by 26%. So if we're going to bear a 44% reduction in spending...Where are you going to cut the other 18%? Well, the pie chart doesn't leave a lot of other attractive options. You'd have to cut benefits to today's Social Security or Medicare recipients...Or the hallowed department of defense. This is why it's disingenious for people to act like we have enough tax receipts to cover our obligations.

I suspect he meant 44% cut in discretionary spending, which includes lots of military spending (over half of discretionary spending is military). The party is over and the hangover is not going away.

[GRH]

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

I'm not sure where the 44% was originally quoted from. It could be that Geithner was using annualized data. But I just tallied up tax receipts versus outlays for the period between January 2011 to May 2011. Based on the data for these months, if we were living SOLELY on tax receipts, spending would have to be reduced by 36%. An no, that is NOT limited just to discretionary spending...That's total federal expenditures.

So my point stands, albeit perhaps not so pessimistically as the original 44% assumption that Rush was quoting (and it is entirely possible that this number could be arrived at depending on how you treat the data). If we axe EVERY dollar of discretionary, education, and social safety net programs...How are we going to make up the difference without defaulting on our pension/Social Security/Medicare/defense obligations?

I'd like to see one of these "we can pay the interest on the debt with tax receipts" advocates address this issue.

[randolph]

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

I'm not sure where the 44% was originally quoted from. It could be that Geithner was using annualized data. But I just tallied up tax receipts versus outlays for the period between January 2011 to May 2011. Based on the data for these months, if we were living SOLELY on tax receipts, spending would have to be reduced by 36%. An no, that is NOT limited just to discretionary spending...That's total federal expenditures.

So my point stands, albeit perhaps not so pessimistically as the original 44% assumption that Rush was quoting (and it is entirely possible that this number could be arrived at depending on how you treat the data). If we axe EVERY dollar of discretionary, education, and social safety net programs...How are we going to make up the difference without defaulting on our pension/Social Security/Medicare/defense obligations?

I'd like to see one of these "we can pay the interest on the debt with tax receipts" advocates address this issue.

The Teanderthals don't care to seriously look at actual data, Flush Limbob provides all the information they want to continue their delusions.

[TracyCoxx]

3. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with any spending that will happen in the minute after it is raised or in the next fifty years after it is raised. Every grownup politician knows this. Obviously. But the DECISION to raise the debt ceiling should have something to do with how we manage the budget afterwards. If you're having to continuously raise the debt ceiling something is wrong, and the country (well at least the grownups) is finally waking up to this.

Like it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus to keep the United States from defaulting on money it owes. The debt ceiling was raised 17 times during the Reagan presidency, and the amount of the ceiling tripled.

...

The debt ceiling was raised 4 times during Clinton's presidency, mostly because the United States enjoyed a surplus during much of his two terms. Under George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was raised at least 7 times.

All these increases happened with bipartisan support. The standard practice is to posture and then make sure it is raised when the vote comes.And how has it been working out so far to just keep raising the debt limit? We've got a debt of over $14 trillion. So we've got the standard posturing this time. But I think it's a bit more than that. The House just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget amendment.

But this is merely a speed bump for a president who has a history of telling the other branches of government to fuck off. A proposal has been presented to Obama by Geithner and other democrats to have Obama raise the debt limit all by his dictator self. It sounds pretty stunning to me, but then I remember who Obama is.

[randolph]

A few years ago, Argentina finally decided to hell with it and defaulted on its international debts. Guess what! It has been prospering ever since.

[smc]

Obviously. But the DECISION to raise the debt ceiling should have something to do with how we manage the budget afterwards. If you're having to continuously raise the debt ceiling something is wrong, and the country (well at least the grownups) is finally waking up to this.

And how has it been working out so far to just keep raising the debt limit? We've got a debt of over $14 trillion. So we've got the standard posturing this time. But I think it's a bit more than that. The House just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget amendment.

But this is merely a speed bump for a president who has a history of telling the other branches of government to fuck off. A proposal has been presented to Obama by Geithner and other democrats to have Obama raise the debt limit all by his dictator self. It sounds pretty stunning to me, but then I remember who Obama is.

A Tracy Coxx specialty: call Obama names without making any substantive contribution to real discourse. George W. Bush added more "signing statements" to legislation than nearly all presidents before him combined, indicating that the executive branch did not have to do what the legislative branch established in laws. When did you refer to him as "his dictator self"?

Hyperbole of this sort is the way around real discussion.

Be prepared, all Forum members, for the next post where Tracy either a) tries to change the subject, or b) claims I have put words in Tracy's mouth, or c) both. Or perhaps the other approach Tracy takes comes next: just pretend no answer was given, or say "I wasn't talking to you, smc" -- as if Tracy has personal threads in the discussion section of this forum.

[randolph]

David Brooks

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That?s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

[smc]

David Brooks

Randolph, it seems to me it would be worthwhile to explain who David Brooks is, lest he be mischaracterized by others in this thread. I will leave that to you, assuming you agree.

[TracyCoxx]

Or perhaps the other approach Tracy takes comes next: just pretend no answer was given.

Sorry. Surely it's completely obvious and I'm missing it, but could you please highlight or just post the part where you answered my question to you about raising the debt ceiling?

[smc]

Sorry. Surely it's completely obvious and I'm missing it, but could you please highlight or just post the part where you answered my question to you about raising the debt ceiling?

I already answered in earlier posts. I stated that default is not an option, and I expressed my opposition to the kind of government spending that gets us into this situation. But nice dodge, Tracy ... a little more artful than usual.

[smc]

Here's are three questions for you, Tracy Coxx. Are you for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases, or only budget cuts? If revenue increases, by what means (please be specific)? If only budget cuts, what specifically would you cut, and by how much?

[randolph]

Randolph, it seems to me it would be worthwhile to explain who David Brooks is, lest he be mischaracterized by others in this thread. I will leave that to you, assuming you agree.

David Brooks is a conservative writer and commentator.

David Brooks's column on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times started in September 2003. He has been a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and he is currently a commentator on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." He is the author of "Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There" and ?On Paradise Drive : How We Live Now (And Always Have) in the Future Tense,? both published by Simon & Schuster.

[GRH]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/06/28/the-sanity-ceiling.aspx?source=ihpdspmra0000001&lidx=1

Yet another article pointing out that the deficit we imagine isn't the deficit that we actually have. We can't cut our way out of the deficit by reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse." Even if all discretionary spending were cut, we'd still have to make cuts to defense and entitlements.

[TracyCoxx]

I already answered in earlier posts. I stated that default is not an option, and I expressed my opposition to the kind of government spending that gets us into this situation. But nice dodge, Tracy ... a little more artful than usual.

Here's are three questions for you, Tracy Coxx. Are you for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases, or only budget cuts? If revenue increases, by what means (please be specific)? If only budget cuts, what specifically would you cut, and by how much?

LOL
smc: oh well uh, I already answered that in previous posts. Yeah, it's there somewhere, but jolly good one there Tracy. So uh let's move on now. Here's some questions for you...
:lol:

And I see you're taking the democrats strategy of not proposing any real cuts of your own and letting someone else be the bad guy. No, I am not for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases. I do like Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Repeal Obamacare, even if it takes money to do it, it would be nothing compared to the drain it will have on our economy in the future. I would also support Trump's plan of putting a tax on Chinese imports in order to pay back the debt and also encourage domestic production. Social Security also needs to be reformed. For people 45 and up there would be no change; for the rest, the younger you are, the more you would pay into your own retirement plans instead of Social Security. That would be a good start...

[smc]

LOL
smc: oh well uh, I already answered that in previous posts. Yeah, it's there somewhere, but jolly good one there Tracy. So uh let's move on now. Here's some questions for you...
:lol:

And I see you're taking the democrats strategy of not proposing any real cuts of your own and letting someone else be the bad guy. No, I am not for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases. I do like Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Repeal Obamacare, even if it takes money to do it, it would be nothing compared to the drain it will have on our economy in the future. I would also support Trump's plan of putting a tax on Chinese imports in order to pay back the debt and also encourage domestic production. Social Security also needs to be reformed. For people 45 and up there would be no change; for the rest, the younger you are, the more you would pay into your own retirement plans instead of Social Security. That would be a good start...

Any reasonable person, regardless of political positions, who reads the full record of our back-and-forth posts can easily see that I long ago proposed cuts. Your positions on these questions, Tracy Coxx, are worthy of honest, respectful discussion. Your method, though, is -- as always -- bankrupt, lying, and reprehensible.

My starting point for budget cuts would be to remember that it is not working people who caused the deficit, and therefore it is not working people who should be punished. This country can afford every single "entitlement" that is the norm in most of the industrialized world. The reason we don't have them is that we subsidize the wealthiest Americans and their corporations, whether directly or indirectly.

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything, until someone can prove that it is defense and not offense. I would cut every subsidy to the oil companies and other mega-corporations. I would eliminate the tax loopholes that make the United States have the most regressive taxation in the industrialized world and that make the United States have the largest income disparity in the developed or developing world, including China.

Here are some specifics:

- eliminate at least $10 billion in "non-defense discretionary" spending by cutting programs that benefit large corporations that are making record profits and need no "assistance"

- nearly $110 billion could be cut from the 2015 defense budget without taking as radical a step as I propose above; this would include savings through efficiency measures, reducing troop levels, eliminating unneeded weapons systems, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military. To this I would add an immediate, 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Did you know that, all told, the United States spends in excess of $20 billion each year to provide air-conditioning to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? That includes all the ancillary costs.)

- leave Medicare benefits alone, but implement all the well-known cost-savings measures (e.g., allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices)

- cut agriculture subsidies by at least half, saving nearly $8 billion; most of this goes to mega-agribusiness concerns.

- eliminate 100% of tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas, which would increase revenue by more than $132 billion.

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem is either a deliberate liar or delusional. So, let's:

- treat capital gains and dividends as regular income in the tax code; reform the estate tax; and enact cap-and-trade with protections against price increases for low-income people. These measures will raise close to $150 billion in revenue.

- eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets and return to 2009 estate tax levels

- address every loophole that allows for underpayment of taxes by the private sector, estimated to account for $7 billion.

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx buys into the uniquely American social lie that this is a land of opportunity in which everyone has an equal chance to rise to the top.

Is rising to the top at the expense of humanity worth it, even if it were possible?

[GRH]

This country can afford every single "entitlement" that is the norm in most of the industrialized world.

I like that you put the word "entitlement" in quotation marks. This is such a politically charged word. Funny how things like basic income and health care for senior citizens is considered an "entitlement"-- despite the fact that these citizens have paid into the system for their benefits.

However, things like corporate tax loopholes and tax cuts are not called "entitlements." Funny, anytime there's a mention of taking these things away, there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth that you'd think the recipients of these give-aways feel "entitled" to them.

"Entitlement" is just one more way the right wages class warfare on the middle and lower class. They call these social programs (which smc has correctly identified as being the norm in any developed country) a negatively charged word which evokes emotion. I think it's high time we start calling tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations the "entitlements" that they actually are.

[randolph]

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

[Enoch Root]

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

I didn't know there was a demonstration from BMW workers, randolph. Was this on the news?

[smc]

I didn't know there was a demonstration from BMW workers, randolph. Was this on the news?

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-fi-hiltzik-20110703,0,1881029.column

The last paragraph of the column is worth including here:

"On Monday, the Fourth of July, Americans will gather to celebrate the overthrow of tyranny. But the ease with which we allow corporate employers to impoverish their loyal workers should make us pause under the fireworks and think about how over the ensuing 235 years we've simply substituted one set of tyrants for another, the new ones immeasurably more heartless and bloodthirsty than the ones we shed."

[Enoch Root]

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-fi-hiltzik-20110703,0,1881029.column

The last paragraph of the column is worth including here:

"On Monday, the Fourth of July, Americans will gather to celebrate the overthrow of tyranny. But the ease with which we allow corporate employers to impoverish their loyal workers should make us pause under the fireworks and think about how over the ensuing 235 years we've simply substituted one set of tyrants for another, the new ones immeasurably more heartless and bloodthirsty than the ones we shed."

That quote is morbidly heartening. I never thought such a thing would be written in an American newspaper.

[Enoch Root]

I just finished reading the article smc. The comments at the bottom are golden. BMW lays off thousands of workers and the posters at the bottom of the page blame the union! It always amazes me. I wonder how they would feel if they had been the ones laid off, with a family to feed and health conditions to manage on top. It's absurd and disgusting.

I have never understood people's desire to harm others economically, to bring people down and then revel in it. Perhaps it is an American phenomenon to desire the destitution of your fellow man.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

I don't suppose you've heard of the Tea Party movement?


You mean that movement that didn't exist when Bush was rump riding the US taxpayers and piling up the debts?

[Enoch Root]

You mean that movement that didn't exist when Bush was rump riding the US taxpayers and piling up the debts?

Oh but Anna don't you see that my dear sweet Tracy does not believe the economic troubles were caused by Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What else could have caused it I cannot say. Perhaps liberal poltergeists setting screwing with computers. Or liberal shadowbinders taking control of the mighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market.

[randolph]

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

I used the term teamsters in this post, I should have used the term ILWU, the International longshoreman workers union. They are related but the teamsters are mainly truck drivers. Sorry

[Enoch Root]

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

Yup, the land of the free and home of the brave and it began with the murder and displacement of Indians and the enslavement of Africans. An august beginning if ever I heard one for a free country. How people reconcile the idea of the founding of America as a watershed in freedom with the slave economy--even though the textbooks do not lie about the chattel slavery; mine didn't anyway--is beyond me. I don't think justice had anything to do with it. And the people in power and those who support them care not a whit for justice either. George Carlin has a routine about that but I've no idea what the rules are for posting links. Neither can I find them.

To paraphrase him: the US was founded by a bunch of slave owners who wanted to be free!

[ila]

Yup, the land of the free and home of the brave and it began with the murder and displacement of Indians and the enslavement of Africans. An august beginning if ever I heard one for a free country. How people reconcile the idea of the founding of America as a watershed in freedom with the slave economy--even though the textbooks do not lie about the chattel slavery; mine didn't anyway--is beyond me. George Carlin has a routine about that but I've no idea what the rules are for posting links. Neither can I find them.

Actually it didn't begin with the enslavement of Africans. It started with people leaving England due to religious reasons. Also don't forget about the complicity of the Africans themselves in the slave trade. If it wasn't for Africans capturing and selling other Africans then there would not have been the slave trade to the Americas.

The slave trade also did not start with Europeans buying slaves from Africans. The slave trade dates back thousands of years.

As for the murder part of your statement, do not forget that for millenia humans have been on the move throughout the world taking over lands which others were already occupying with the inevitable battles and killing that followed.

[Enoch Root]

Actually it didn't begin with the enslavement of Africans. It started with people leaving England due to religious reasons. Also don't forget about the complicity of the Africans themselves in the slave trade. If it wasn't for Africans capturing and selling other Africans then there would not have been the slave trade to the Americas.

The slave trade also did not start with Europeans buying slaves from Africans. The slave trade dates back thousands of years.

As for the murder part of your statement, do not forget that for millenia humans have been on the move throughout the world taking over lands which others were already occupying with the inevitable battles and killing that followed.

Oh I'm not. History is written in blood. This I sadly know.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me see if I can. I was speaking about the colonies themselves, not the Pilgrims, and the hypocrisy inherent in the founding of a free nation...with the institution of slavery. I did know that Africans would enslave one another frequently and they provided quite a few (most?) of the slaves for the colonies. As for the last paragraph: yep, can't and won't deny it. People have funny horrifying tribal inclinations.

[ila]

Oh I'm not. History is written in blood. This I sadly know.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me see if I can. I was speaking about the colonies themselves, not the Pilgrims, and the hypocrisy inherent in the founding of a free nation...with the institution of slavery. I did know that Africans would enslave one another frequently and they provided quite a few (most?) of the slaves for the colonies.

I understand now what you were saying.

As for the last paragraph: yep, can't and won't deny it. People have funny horrifying tribal inclinations.

This is all so very true.

[Enoch Root]

I could have sworn I've seen a longer version with better audiovisual quality, sadly I can't find such a thing and my patience does not seem to hold out for such things.

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

He used to be so alive back then.

[Enoch Root]

I understand now what you were saying.



This is all so very true.

I should have written: I was not clear.

[transjen]

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

It should be noted that with respect to social security, it has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the U.S. federal deficit. Social Security is paid for by payroll taxes and employer contributions. There is sufficient money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits for the next 25 years. There are changes that could be made (most specifically, means testing so that the wealthy pay into it differently or take nothing out) that would make the Trust Fund secure for twice or three times as long. But making ANY change to Social Security right now will have absolutely NO IMPACT on the federal deficit. NONE WHATSOEVER.

[smc]

^ Just to clarify, Social Security IS part of the federal deficit in the following way. Part of the federal debt is actually owed to Social Security, because Congress has borrowed from the Trust Fund over the past 20 years whenever it has been in surplus ... and has done so rather prodigiously.

[TracyCoxx]

Your method, though, is -- as always -- bankrupt, lying, and reprehensible.Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

we subsidize the wealthiest Americans and their corporations, whether directly or indirectly.This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

I would cut every subsidy to the oil companies and other mega-corporations. I would eliminate the tax loopholes that make the United States have the most regressive taxation in the industrialized world and that make the United States have the largest income disparity in the developed or developing world, including China.Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything,This would be irresponsible.

- nearly $110 billion could be cut from the 2015 defense budget without taking as radical a step as I propose above; this would include savings through efficiency measures, reducing troop levels, eliminating unneeded weapons systems, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military. To this I would add an immediate, 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan.That's better...

- eliminate 100% of tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas, which would increase revenue by more than $132 billion.Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problemrecognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

- eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets and return to 2009 estate tax levelsEven Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world,For about 5 more years. Then it will be China.

but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

I like that you put the word "entitlement" in quotation marks. This is such a politically charged word. Funny how things like basic income and health care for senior citizens is considered an "entitlement"-- despite the fact that these citizens have paid into the system for their benefits.No, it is by definition:
* a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
* belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

However, things like corporate tax loopholes and tax cuts are not called "entitlements." Funny, anytime there's a mention of taking these things away, there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth that you'd think the recipients of these give-aways feel "entitled" to them.Also by definition. Fine go ahead and call those entitlements.

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-fi-hiltzik-20110703,0,1881029.column

The last paragraph of the column is worth including here:

"On Monday, the Fourth of July, Americans will gather to celebrate the overthrow of tyranny. But the ease with which we allow corporate employers to impoverish their loyal workers should make us pause under the fireworks and think about how over the ensuing 235 years we've simply substituted one set of tyrants for another, the new ones immeasurably more heartless and bloodthirsty than the ones we shed."

That quote is morbidly heartening. I never thought such a thing would be written in an American newspaper.
It wasn't. It was from the Los Angeles Times :lol:

[TracyCoxx]

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

LMAO! When Jen is this upset about Obama that can only mean good news for the US.

[smc]

Your obligatory uncalled for whining is noted. Next time just make an acronym of this and put it in your sig.

Just because you pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, or that everyone else doesn't know, doesn't make the fact disappear.

This can be done largely with a flat tax. Then we can get rid of the IRS. There's a huge chunk of change saved.

Deja vu. Again, flat tax.

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?
There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.

This would be irresponsible.

That's better...

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?

Absolutely. And let's stop paying to get Brazil set up to do offshore oil drilling. That's a subsidy not for American companies that employ others oversees, but foreign companies employing people overseas... WTF?!!!

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Note to all readers: the quote above is the Tracy Coxx "ending" to the following statement of mine: "Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem ..." It is not a substantive response to the point I made, and answers nothing.

Even Obama recognized how harmful that would be to our economy.

You know that's bullshit, and yet you post it anyway. It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea. We understand you don't like him; you've called him names. And now we see again that you cannot conduct a debate based in honesty.

...knows that American corporations and small businesses drive the economy. And if you raise taxes too much on these corporations they will move over seas and drive someone else's economy.

Note that the above quote is Tracy Coxx's ending to the following that I wrote: "The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx ..."

Where are these engines of the economy right now, Tracy Coxx? Corporations reap profits and hoard their moneys. The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available. "Drive the economy"? You are correct. They are driving it into the ground, because the profit motive -- which has nothing to do with job creation per se -- trumps any interest in what's good for society. And that means it trumps any interest in what's good for you.

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding. I will simply note that your argument "by definition" is about a definition given the word for political purposes. It is a charged word meant to connote a negative. You are smart enough to know this, so why do you adopt the posture of a Sophist to make your argument. Surely you are capable of arguing the point on the merits, rather than using a trick to avoid that argument.

How I wish, every time I read your posts, that you were available for my rhetoric class. I wouldn't have to give my students printouts for reading. I could just have you verbalize that which you write on this forum, and save some trees from having to give their lives to become paper.

[transjen]

LMAO! When Jen is this upset about Obama that can only mean good news for the US.

I guess by good news you mean the top two percent won't have to suffer or even help in ending the deficet created by W with his trickle down policies of cutting taxes for the rich and the trillion spent in the war he started with his lies and we now have to rebulid Iraq wasting a trillion dollars

As much as you and the GOP whine about everyone bashing W , it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet
So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?
W and his GOP flunkies made this miss and they are still insisting on keeping his failed plans alive
:yes: This is W's mess and blaming Obama won't change the truth

[smc]

... As much as you and the GOP whine about everyone bashing W , it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet
So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?
W and his GOP flunkies made this miss and they are still insisting on keeping his failed plans alive
:yes: This is W's mess and blaming Obama won't change the truth

Yes, Jen, absolutely. They "bought" a war on credit, and now -- when it comes time to pay -- they want to pretend that the problem is everything but what they did.

It's like taking out a car loan to buy a new automobile, not making the payments, and then going to the local bank that gave you the money and insisting that they lay off some of their tellers to make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by your default.

The teller reference is especially for you, Jen. And thanks for using the word "whine". ;)

[TracyCoxx]

The flat tax is regressive. That's why so many wealthy people and their think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support it. A lowly service worker needs a greater percentage of her income to survive than does a wealthy "captain of industry" or me, or, I suspect, Tracy Coxx. Why shouldn't we pay a higher percentage? What good does it do our country to have a regressive tax?Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

Of course, if you are a person who hasn't a thread of social solidarity in her or his bones, it makes perfect sense to call for regressive taxation on income. Tracy Coxx, is that where you stand?No. I support flat tax remember?

There is absolutely no reason why taxes should not be higher the more money you make.It should not be the burden of 10% of the country to fund 68% of the government.

I'm for eliminating the entire "offense" budget, as I made clear. Why do you support keeping any of the "offense" budget, Tracy Coxx?In case the need to defend ourselves arises.

I hope that you will state without equivocation -- that is, without raising an ancillary issue -- your support for a 100% elimination of the subsidies I mentioned to which your response above corresponds.I will stop raising ancillary issues when responding to you if you will do the same with me. But yes, I support the elimination of 100% of subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas - with one exception: If US laws prohibit a company from doing work within our own borders, and that company's products are of value to the US, then it's only fair for that company to be subsidized to cover the additional expense of doing business elsewhere.

It was a horrible compromise made by a president who is largely spineless. But he made clear he did not think it was a good idea.With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea?

The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available.Well they can do that when they also run the treasury.

Notably, you said nothing about my main point about sustainability, equitability, and social unrest.If you want the wealthiest 10% of the country to pay for the operation of the country, don't be surprised when they want to call the shots. And it's not sustainable. It will last until over 50% of the country realizes they can vote themselves a share of the treasury.

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding.Yeah, she's pretty good about that.

[TracyCoxx]

I guess by good news you mean the top two percent won't have to suffer or even help in ending the deficet created by W with his trickle down policies of cutting taxes for the rich and the trillion spent in the war he started with his lies and we now have to rebulid Iraq wasting a trillion dollarsIf only you had some concept of Bush's deficit spending vs Obama's deficit spending. We've been down that road many times though.

it was W that created the mess we are in his tax cuts for the rich and his unfonded wars created this deficet.What unfondled wars? I thought congress funded them. You mean Bush got away with funding wars without congressional support past the 90 days he's allowed? THAT IS AN OUTRAGE - if only it were true.

So where are the jobs made by trickle down? it's been ten years so where are the jobs?What was the unemployment rate during Bush's terms? Where are the jobs that BO's stimulus packages were supposed to create? Like BO says, they weren't as shovel ready as he thought.

[smc]

Flat tax is flat tax, and regressive tax is regressive tax. Our present tax code is social engineering run amok. The government should not get into the business of deciding who should have a bigger burden. Flat tax removes that and taxes everyone an equal percentage.

No. I support flat tax remember? ...

In case the need to defend ourselves arises. ...

With a democrat controlled House and Senate, why did a democrat president compromise and do something he didn't think was a good idea? ...

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.

[TracyCoxx]

1. The flat tax is regressive. You can pretend it is not, but any tax that treats a billionaire and someone who is paid minimum wage the same is "tending to return or revert" us to social barbarism. I don't care that economists call it something else. There's a reason it's supported by the billionaires and their mouthpieces.
I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

2. You dodged the question about the defense budget by ignoring its main point.No, I answered your question. You asked about MY reason to support, and as usual, criticized it because it's not what you want to hear.

3. Oh, and a Republican president never did anything he didn't fully agree with? Give me a fuckin' break.Sure they have. When they had to compromise with Congress. That wasn't the case with Obama. A republican president has also done things they didn't agree with, despite the ability to do what they really wanted to do, because they knew what was really best for the country. Obama made a rare mature selfless decision when he continued the Bush tax cuts for the good of the country.

If you're claiming that my statement that Obama realized that raising taxes is bad for the economy is a lie then I think people here can see how hollow your accusations are, no matter how often you repeat them.

[smc]

I see a pattern with you. You take offense when someone uses a word as it's defined because they should know what is really meant. As an engineer, I find it's less confusing if everyone says what they mean with words that mean what they say.

What bullshit. I didn't take offense. I challenge you to show how the flat tax does anything for people at the lower end of the income spectrum to create greater fairness and equality across the spectrum, not just a benefit for the wealthiest. If you can do so, I'll retract my statement that it is regressive.

Regressive is an adjective with a general meaning and a specific meaning it has been given by economists with respect to taxation. In that latter meaning, it is a technical term. As an engineer, you should know that the ways in which technical adjectives are used are not necessarily commensurate with the dictionary definitions for their general use.

[GRH]

I don't have time for a long thoughtful reply...But Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government. Well hello...It's because the top 10% own 80% of the nation's wealth. The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Wealthy_benefit_more_from_system,_so_owe _a_greater_tax_debt

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax. But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).

[randolph]

Although the "flat tax" is deemed regressive, in actual practice is it really? The wealthy have many ways of minimizing or eliminating their taxes that are unavailable to the lower incomes. I suspect a flat tax would vastly simplify the tax system and provide more income for the government. Everybody should support the government.
Eliminating the sales tax, which hurts low income people, would stimulate the economy and compensate somewhat for the flat income tax.
Yeah, I know, there are plenty of arguments against this.

[GRH]

There's another thing that a LOT of people seem to have a misconception about regarding our "progressive" tax system. Some people seem to be under the impression that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of tax on ALL of their earnings and this is simply not the case. The fact is, everyone's first dollar's of earnings are taxed exactly the same as everyone else's. Up until the first marginal tax bracket, EVERYONE (wealthy and poor alike) are taxed at 10%. Then going up to the next income tax bracket, the earnings between the first and third tax bracket are taxed at 15%.

I think the right like to play a sympathy game as if the "poor", overtaxed wealthy of this country pay 35% on ALL of their earnings. The fact is, for a couple filing jointly, those 35% tax rates don't kick in except on earnings in excess of $250,000. The earnings up to that threshhold are taxed at lower rates. The wealthy would like you to believe that if they make $251,000 a year that they pay $87,850 in taxes (taxing ALL earnings at 35%). The fact is, only the $1,000 (in excess of the $250,000) is taxed at 35%.

And of course, this doesn't even begin to take into account all the deductions and favored tax rates. Yes, some people end up paying no income taxes at all thanks to all the credits and deductions available. And let's not forget that capital gains and dividends are taxed at only 15%...A major source of income for the wealthy. As a result, the EFFECTIVE tax rate that America's wealthiest pay (on total income) is in many cases lower than the income taxes paid by some of our middle class Americans.

[transjen]

I hate to burst everyones bubble but there is really no such thing as a fair tax system cause no matter the system there will be special loopholes favoring one group over everyone else inserted in or added later
Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quick the only difference is they feel the upper two percent shouldn't have to pay taxes only the poor and lower middle class should pay all the taxes
:eek:Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

So anyway...

Tracy seems concerned with the "progressive" nature of our taxation system. As if there is a problem that the top 10% shoulder a larger share of funding the government.I don't have a problem with that exactly. If there was a flat tax at 17%, someone who makes $100 million/yr would have a $17 million tax bill. If someone made $10000/yr then they would have a $1700 tax bill. The richer person still shoulders a much larger share of funding the government.

The wealthy were allowed to benefit disproportionately from the infrastructure that America provides (legal, education, structural, etc.), so it should be expected that they pay a higher share of the tax burden. How so? Well the link below goes into a bit more detail, but it gives the example of Bill Gates from Microsoft. How did he disproportionately benefit from America's infrastructure? For one, he was able to sell stock on regulated financial exchanges. He was able to patent his product and pursue litigation in cases of infringement. He was able to hire college educated students (who went to public universities, had student loans/grants, etc.). Do you think Bill Gates would have been able to innovate and come up with Microsoft if he had lived in some third world country without America's infrastructure?This has nothing to do with some 3rd world country. This is about how the rich vs poor in America are taxed.

And even the most ardent supporters of a "flat tax" have admitted the need for some sort of subsidy/credit for the low income earningers-- because this IS a regressive tax. So in the end, it's not even a flat tax.LOL awesome. You are actually claiming that flat tax is not flat tax. You have violated perhaps the most fundamental axiom: the reflexive axiom and claimed that A is not A. If you're going to call flat tax regressive tax, then what to you call something that is truly by definition regressive tax? The classic trademark of liberals is to water down words with alternate meanings. You and your Kinetic Military Actions, Man Caused Disasters and Deferred Successes.

But just out of curiosity Tracy, I've always heard that the tax should be levied on essentially all purchases. Would you support levying the "flat tax" on purchases of stock and securities? Because if we're going to be fair, we've got to apply the tax to EVERYTHING that is purchased (including the trading vehicles of the wealthy).
I'm no expert on economics, but that's referred to as "Fair Tax", and as you say another example of a flat tax system. There's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and again, the elimination of the IRS.

[TracyCoxx]

Also keep in mind that no matter how many times the GOP scream about the tax and spend DEMS let us not forget that the GOP spend tax dollars just as quickAre you talking about GOP administrations with or without democrat congresses? And are you comparing them to democrat administrations with or without GOP congresses?

[TracyCoxx]

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuWUZTYVQ&feature=player_embedded

[smc]

From Congressman Joe Walsh to Obama: Quit Lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuWUZTYVQ&feature=player_embedded

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes for genuine discourse in the minds of many of the so-called Tea Party members of Congress and, unfortunately, at least one regular poster on this Forum.

[franalexes]

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes for genuine discourse .).(yada,yada, yada, etc. etc

This is the ideal example of the kind of worthless, bankrupt, adolescent bullshit that substitutes , yada, yada, yada,

Tracy, meet me at the Alamo. ;)

[Vickieslut]

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

[Suckslut]

I support the fair tax.

[Enoch Root]

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?

[randolph]

It cannot end soon enough for me. I am a rare breed a tranny who loves cock and is a die hard republican conservative.

Vicky, it should be quite obvious that you are in good company here.
Sucking tranny cock is very appealing to Liberals. :turnon::inlove:

Being fucked in the ass by a tranny cock is very appealing to conservatives.:coupling:

Conservatives always think they are being screwed by somebody of some thing (taxes). :frown:

Liberals on the other hand believe everybody should enjoy life, the rich and poor alike. Of course, this requires the rich to help out with some of their riches being transferred to the poor. :respect::hug:

[KittyKaiti]

It's funny that anyone on this board would even admit to being a rightist conservative Republican. Go tell your Repub friends you like to play dress up and get fucked by other men. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[GRH]

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

[KittyKaiti]

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

Exactly but speaking of that, the very same thing occurred over on HungAngels Forums. There was a transwoman who lived part time but why part time? Because her job was a campaign member of a Republican party where she had to dress and look like a man, fully aware that she would be fired from her job if they knew she was transitioning. But she was so twisted into Republican and conservative ideology that no matter how many people explained it to her what she was doing was wrong and hypocritical she ended up leaving the forum or getting banned, not sure. She just couldn't accept the fact that by doing her job, which was to make phone calls and promote people to vote for Republicans, that she was damaging and hurting herself, her community (LGBT) and being a hypocrite, supporting and working for a party that wants to deny rights to and outlaw LGBT people. It's sad.

[franalexes]

It's funny that anyone on this board would even admit to being a rightist conservative Republican. Go tell your Repub friends you like to play dress up and get fucked by other men. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I gave strong hints.
The line of "Wannabees" is long.:rolleyes:

[Enoch Root]

Even if my economic and social philosophy aligned with conservative Republican values, I don't think I could ever affiliate with a party that would seek to take away transgendered/gay rights (or at the minimum, deny them).

Absolutely. Seems to me that's as good a reason to shun the Democrats as well.

[randolph]

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

[KittyKaiti]

Absolutely. Seems to me that's as good a reason to shun the Democrats as well.

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT and pass federal hate crimes protections for transgender. Why would you shun that? My state is run by Dems and we just passed gay marriage and laws like GENDA are in the works (which protect transgender from discrimination). Our Democratic friends have also repeatedly attempted to introduce and pass ENDA, which would protect LGB & Transgender from employment discrimination under federal law.

But every time, Republicans have fought to strike them down and religious organizations and corrupt conservative/right wing lobbyists have done everything in their power to not only kill such bills in the Congress and Senate but also openly bash transgender people and spread propaganda lies about us, ie: all those Republican right wing "Family" organizations.

I have great respect for Democrats, while I am not registered to any specific party, I voted for Obama and he was a good choice for me and the community.

[Enoch Root]

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT and pass federal hate crimes protections for transgender. Why would you shun that? My state is run by Dems and we just passed gay marriage and laws like GENDA are in the works (which protect transgender from discrimination). Our Democratic friends have also repeatedly attempted to introduce and pass ENDA, which would protect LGB & Transgender from employment discrimination under federal law.

But every time, Republicans have fought to strike them down and religious organizations and corrupt conservative/right wing lobbyists have done everything in their power to not only kill such bills in the Congress and Senate but also openly bash transgender people and spread propaganda lies about us, ie: all those Republican right wing "Family" organizations.

I have great respect for Democrats, while I am not registered to any specific party, I voted for Obama and he was a good choice for me and the community.

I thought the administration took down DADT grudingly. Am I wrong about this? I'd certainly like to be wrong about it. And Obama doesn't seem to want to pass a bill for marriage equality. But if you are correct Kitti then I gladly rescind my previous post.

[KittyKaiti]

I thought the administration took down DADT grudingly. Am I wrong about this? I'd certainly like to be wrong about it. And Obama doesn't seem to want to pass a bill for marriage equality. But if you are correct Kitti then I gladly rescind my previous post.

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even obey the law.

Also in regards to federal recognition of gay marriage, the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional.

[Enoch Root]

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even follow the law.

But you forget Kitty: Obama is rescinding DADT because he's weak on defense. He sympathizes with terrorists. Hell he is one. Hussein? Don't tell me that's not a terrorist name. What we need to win this--neverending--war is strong virile heterosexual men. No one shoots like a man pumped up with testosterone and lusting after his wife or girlfriend back home. And heterosexuality also endows you with God's own light, thus protecting you from bullets. Destroy the sanctity of marriage and that of the Army by giving them to the homosexual communists--50s or 40s reference I am not fucking kidding--and you deliver us unto the terrorists.

[Enoch Root]

No, the military and Pentagon are dismantling DADT grudgingly in accordance with the law signed by Obama and through Supreme Court order. They are dragging their feet like whiny assholes and even after the bill passed they kept discharging gays but the Supreme Court recently ordered a freeze on discharges. I hate Repubs. They won't even obey the law.

The Supreme Court ordered a freeze on them? I'm quite surprised.

[KittyKaiti]

But you forget Kitty: Obama is rescinding DADT because he's weak on defense. He sympathizes with terrorists. Hell he is one. Hussein? Don't tell me that's not a terrorist name. What we need to win this--neverending--war is strong virile heterosexual men. No one shoots like a man pumped up with testosterone and lusting after his wife or girlfriend back home. And heterosexuality also endows you with God's own light, thus protecting you from bullets. Destroy the sanctity of marriage and that of the Army by giving them to the homosexual communists--50s or 40s reference I am not fucking kidding--and you deliver us unto the terrorists.

Please tell me that entire statement is a troll joke.

[Enoch Root]

Please tell me that entire statement is a troll joke.

A joke yes. Though not a troll joke. But now you've made me explain which makes me :broken:

I think my best defense lies with the posts I've made in this forum before. Most of which can be found on this very thread.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Since Obama has been in office he has managed to tear down DADT

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

[Enoch Root]

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

I think I agree with Anna now. That part about the dog, that part...that part is funny.

[KittyKaiti]

Say whu??

Obama's legislative cowpat of a repeal for dadt is such a worthless sponge it allows the military to drag thier feet for as long as possible, in the meantime continuing to discharge gay personnel. The discharge of gay soldiers was actually stopped by the Log Cabin Republican's court action. Obama then promptly cried about how it should be changed through legislation, not a court ruling.

Just goes to show what a worthless sack of dough Obama is that he gets beaten to the punch by a Republican group on one of his own campaign promises.

Yes, Democrats may be better than the Republicans but only in the same way as a 1 legged dog is better than a no legged dog.

I can't find anything about Obama "crying about the court ruling". And the Log Cabin Repubs are homosexuals... they must have their party affiliations confused.

[Enoch Root]

I can't find anything about Obama "crying about the court ruling". And the Log Cabin Repubs are homosexuals... they must have their party affiliations confused.

Must resist lowbrow lazy joke about the Log Cabin Republicans----

[randolph]

"Liberal free for all coming to an end" ?
More than that will be coming to an end if the Repubs have there way. A default could well be the end of the American dream. Playing Russian roulette with the economy is the height of irresponsibility. The Congress is responsible for the government expenses. They can cut expenses and raise or lower taxes, it's up to them. They don't have to listen to lobbyists or anybody else other than the voters. Obama can't raise the debt ceiling, it's up to Congress to do what is right for the country.
Expenses are out of control primarily because of Reaganomics. The absurd belief that you can increase revenue by cutting taxes. It didn't work during Reagon's presidency or during the Bush administration, yet Repubs in congress like to spend money as much as the Democrats. The difference is the Democrats realize you have to raise taxes if you want to spend more money.
Right now we need a strong leader who can rally the public to force this fucked up Congress to shape up and represent the people.

[franalexes]

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

You are mixing apples and oranges. The republicans like me because I'm conservative. Am I trying to reconcile hatred here from others because I am conservative? Ever notice how many conservatives used to be Democrats? Former Texas Governor John Connally comes to mind. Hatred of transsexuals is not bound by party lines. What I can't stand is just about everything that the democrats seem to support. ( the list is too long to waste the web space)

[franalexes]

"Liberal free for all coming to an end" ?
Right now we need a strong leader who can rally the public to force this fucked up Congress to shape up and represent the people.

I guess I'm not one of "the people". ( Oh yes, I've been labled thank you. I'm a transsexual.)

[TracyCoxx]

Perhaps the two prominent conservatives on the forum (Fran and Tracy), would be willing to explain how they reconcile their politically conservative views with the intolerance and hate of conservatives toward transsexuals.

As you might have noticed when I'm talking about the GOP candidates I don't completely agree with the GOP platform. The political spectrum is not one dimensional => fiscally liberal to fiscally conservative. Transgendered/gay rights are certainly a good thing, but if the country is bankrupt and the dollar collapses then I'm going to be overwhelmed with much bigger issues. No the country isn't bankrupt, and the dollar is fine at the moment, but we could literally turn on the tv tomorrow and find out different.

Everyone has their own ideas on how we got to this point, but for me it's not entirely the democrats that did it, but certainly the Obama administration has had a huge hand in where we are now. I know we've raised the debt limit several times in the past but the debt has skyrocketed so high over the past few years that I really don't feel that we can blindly raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget agreement.

I also know republicans have been spending into the red as well, but nowhere near as far as the Obama administration.

At least for now, the republicans are finally serious about cutting the deficit. Both sides have acknowledged that the debt needs to be cut. They should also recognize the difficulty in doing that. They HAVE to agree on a balanced budget amendment.

[TracyCoxx]

The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013.

The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to the fund.

Does anyone think Obama feels any urgency in cutting spending?

[franalexes]

Your question of course is addressed to those that would have an afirmative answer.
I do not . The republicans have come up with several plans. The president and the dem's in the Senate have rejected them ,but have not presented a plan of their own. A few days ago the Senate even voted to shut off debate about the issue. How numb is that? They don't even want to discuss it let alone fix it!
Obama has said we need to cut AFTER we spend a little more.
"Let's put off serious solution 'til AFTER I get re-elected." ( implied response)

[transjen]

.

At least for now, the republicans are finally serious about cutting the deficit. Both sides have acknowledged that the debt needs to be cut. They should also recognize the difficulty in doing that. They HAVE to agree on a balanced budget amendment.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Thanks for the laugh i need one
Are you talking about the same GOP that added a few trillion to the debt by insisting the Bush tax cuts for the top ten percent remain intact are you refering to the same GOP that insist cuts be made on the backs of the seniors while the rich opps sorry so called job creators keep there tax cuts and not have to scarifice

CAP CUT BALANCE is nothing but next years bumper sticker and typical GOP screw the poor deal and make damn sure the rich pay no taxes
When bozos like Palin and Bachman say it's the best way forward you know it's a typical GOP :coupling: to the poor
The tea party wack a dos insist on cuts cuts and don't dare expect the rich to pay one penny of tax
GOD forbid the top ten percent have to chip in and be burdened with paying there fair share in fact they need to be taxed less according to the 12 bozos trying to head the 12 ticket
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Are you talking about the same GOP that added a few trillion to the debt by insisting the Bush tax cuts for the top ten percent remain intact
Obama announces tentative deal to extend Bush tax cuts (http://www.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-addresses-possible-deal-on-bush-tax-cuts/1)
Well I think that addresses your first question.

are you refering to the same GOP that insist cuts be made on the backs of the seniorsThe GOP isn't insisting that. That's what happens if the republicans AND democrats can't compromise. Both sides would like a solution though.

[randolph]

The Myths of Reaganomics :coupling:
Check out this site for an explanation and how it relates to the present situation.
http://mises.org/daily/1544

[TracyCoxx]

So last friday, Boner announced that he's done dealing with Obama because Obama 'moved the goal posts'. i.e. he previously agreed to something and then reneged. So he decided he'll just deal with the Senate.

And Harry Reid is actually negotiating with him. So the pres is cut out. Proposals from both the house and senate will not raise taxes. Interesting...