Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[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 paladin68

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

Do you know who you're talking to?

Originally Posted by smc

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

[parr]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[parr]

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?

And while they are at it, swing on by Jeffery Immelt's.

[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.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

Oh, and those are all capitalist countries.

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

[TracyCoxx]

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.

[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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

Enoch Root???

[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.

[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.

[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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

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

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

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

[transjen]

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

Jerseygirl Jen

[Enoch Root]

The Prison Industrial Complex and Racism:

http://prisondivestment.wordpress.co...of-immigrants/

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by tslust

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

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

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

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

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

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

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

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

[paladin68]

Aren't you part of the American school system?

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

Aren't you part of the American school system?

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

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

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

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

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

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

[Enoch Root]

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 smc

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

Of course.

Originally Posted by smc

No, there is no country to emulate, only an idea. A very powerful idea. It is that society can be organized to put human needs first. Profits are not necessary.

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

[TracyCoxx]

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.

[paladin68]

Originally Posted by smc

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

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

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

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by paladin68

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

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

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

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

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

Happy now?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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

[Enoch Root]

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.

[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.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by paladin68

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

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

[transjen]

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tslust

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

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