Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

I said nothing about Obama's proposed legislation.

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

[tslust]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

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

[tslust]

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

[GRH]

Originally Posted by tslust

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

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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GRH

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Given that the top 20% of earners own 80% of the nation's wealth, I have absolutely no problem with them paying a higher share of the tax burden.

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

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

You took the words right out of my mouth.

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

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

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by tslust

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

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

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

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

[tslust]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

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

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

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

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

Enoch Root???

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[Enoch Root]

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[transjen]

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

Santas naughty elf Jen

[Enoch Root]

Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator:

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

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by transjen

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

Santas naughty elf Jen

If you are referring to Huey Long, that man was almost as corrupt & criminal ad Daly in Chicago.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by paladin68

If you are referring to Huey Long, that man was almost as corrupt & criminal ad Daly in Chicago.

And like the House and Senate we have today isn't?
Both parties are corrupt so in the end you have to pick do we want Robin Hood or Jesse James?
I'd perfer Robin Hood
Santas naughty elf Jen

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

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

Those assholes need prison time instead of bonuses...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Did you actually spend any time thinking about what you would write in response before your knee jerked?

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

Originally Posted by smc

I never said I wanted "corporations to be taxed like people."

Sorry, I got what you said confused with Randolph who said:

Originally Posted by randolph

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

I said nothing about Obama's proposed legislation.

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

And there you go again.

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

Nice dodge. An apologist is someone makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, and so on. You legitimize Carolla's rant ...

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

Originally Posted by smc

And now, dear readers who may be following this exchange, we come to the part where Tracy Coxx whines that he has been attacked personally. The last defense of Tracy Coxx is to reproduce Forum Rule 4 at the end of a discussion when Tracy Coxx cannot debate on the substance of issues.

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

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

And there you go again.

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

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

I'll let others to draw their own conclusions.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

I wrote the following:

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

I'll let others to draw their own conclusions.

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

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