Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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...


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]

Originally Posted by smc

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]

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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/columnis...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]

Originally Posted by smc

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnis...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.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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???

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]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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]

Originally Posted by ila

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]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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]

Originally Posted by ila

I understand now what you were saying.



This is all so very true.

I should have written: I was not clear.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything,

This would be irresponsible.

Originally Posted by smc

- 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...

Originally Posted by smc

- 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?!!!

Originally Posted by smc

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem

recognizes the huge amount of waste already in our government.

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

Originally Posted by smc

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world,

For about 5 more years. Then it will be China.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by GRH

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

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

...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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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?

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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?

Originally Posted by smc

The financial institutions take bailout money and make little credit available.

Well they can do that when they also run the treasury.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the "entitlement" discussion, I have no doubt that GRH is more than capable of responding.

Yeah, she's pretty good about that.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.