Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[Enoch Root]

Occupy Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu63e...utu.be&t=1m42s

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Occupy Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu63e...utu.be&t=1m42s

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

[Enoch Root]

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

[franalexes]

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

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

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

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

"Left" enough for you, fran?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

Those are the mobs that I speak of.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Those are the mobs that I speak of.

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

[Trogdor]

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

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

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

[JodieTs]

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

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

[smc]

A Letter from Goldman Sachs Concerning Occupy Wall Street

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

Dear Investor:

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

How can we make money off them?

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Lloyd Blankfein

Chairman, Goldman Sachs

[ucmeat]

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

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

[Trogdor]

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

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

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

[ucmeat]

Trogdor

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

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

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

[Enoch Root]

I am facepalming over the last three posts.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am facepalming over the last three posts.

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painting the movement with this broad brush is simply wrong. The overwhelming majority of participants in the United States have demonstrated themselves to be peaceful.

What about my Tea Party question?

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

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

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

[Enoch Root]

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

[Enoch Root]

Keith Olbermann reads statement from Occupy Wall Street:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5arX...eature=related

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

When Tea Party activists seek to shut down a member of Congress who is conducting a town hall meeting in her or his district, is that a "mob"?

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

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

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

[Trogdor]

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


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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy Movement:

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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The Hypocrisy of the Occupy movement

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

"Fringe territory"? Please explain what you mean.

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

[GRH]

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

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

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

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

[Trogdor]

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

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



~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

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

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



~Wonders who this post will piss off this time~

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

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by smc

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

Having more money in the long run.


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

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Having more money in the long run.


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

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

[Enoch Root]

Halloween Party at the foreclosure mill, Steven J Baum:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/op...veal.html?_r=1

[TracyCoxx]

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

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

This is the start of a USA spring uprising

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

This is the start of a USA spring uprising

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

[GRH]

Originally Posted by smc

You do a disservice to democracy...

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