The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central GOP - the party of the rich

Alternative of complete deregulation? You really dont listen when other people speak do you.
( Sinij: the only alternative to any regulation being good, is complete and total deregulation. ) <---- is this what you are saying? If so , say it clearly so you cant weasel out by claiming you meant something else when I shred the concept. If not, never bring it up in this context again, because repeated use of this strawman is making me lose patience with trying to treat your arguments with respect.

Move to Somalia? Again, you just dont let anything penetrate. Sorry to tell you, if the USA started implementing the type of tax regime you are describing, there are LOTS of places in the world they could go to. This is what I am talking about when I refer to you not thinking things through at all. USA raises tax rate to 50%, just say as a number since you wont give one... why not goto Japan... or Australia, or Canada, or.. etc, etc,etc

Or, if you really think the only alternative to a country that taxes people the way YOU want to tax them is Somalia.. just say so. but say it clearly. Otherwise, we have NOT been over that - and even when we DID go over it in regards to the CURRENT USA.. your arguments still went down in flames, so I cant fathom why you brought it up again at all.

Also regarding my "soap box" , you are the one who was saying to keep raising taxes until ... ??? well you werent specific, but the impression given was you want to CRUSH the wealthy with taxes. If you want people to make accurate comments regarding your statements, instead of being whiny and snotty about it - articulate something specific.

I highlighted parts where you constructed and proceed to attack strawman in your previous post.



In contrast to you, who always listens? Trust me, frustration is mutual.



You advocate deregulation and free market forces as the only way to have healthy economy. You see regulation as a corrupt and efficiency-killing activity.

I advocate a strict regulatory framework that defines roles and scope of allowable activities, I want to see free market operating within this framework to keep it from self-corrupting.

I hope that answers your question, because I have difficulty understanding what is that exactly you were asking me that wasn't repeatedly stated by me Ad nauseam.

I re-stated my "The Graph" opinion in other thread, I simply don't see how I can simplify it more than this. If this isn't clear, I don't think we have enough agreed-on concepts to facilitate any kind of communication.

Previously you were saying that literally any regulation was a good regulation. Those statements were the ones I took issue with, your current stance is different than what you had previously said.

Also, quit trying to put words in my mouth.

I have said previously, if you want to discuss the merits of specific regulations , I am all for it. Your answer then was "any regulations are good". Pay attention to what you actually say.

So, in simple yes or no terms - "Sinij: the only alternative to any regulation being good, is complete and total deregulation." - this previous paraphrasing of your position no longer applies?

If not, perhaps a rational discussion is possible. If you are willing to stop uttering such absurdities like " the alternative to extreme taxation is Somalia " anyhow.

You have never articulated any logic making a case that simply taxing the wealthy somehow creates more wealth, or more wealthy people.

You are making an underpants gnome argument.

You were actually on to something for a minute when you were talking about the divisions of labor and change creating opportunities to accumulate wealth. But somehow managed to abandon that budding line of thought and retreat to a punitive "if you have money, you must be punished" line.. while simultaneously arguing that doing so, will somehow help the rest of us.

Derid, it takes two to debate. When you twist my words into unrecognizable mess that even I, supposed author, have difficulty understand what you refer to, then you are only participating in monologue.

Obviously bad regulation can and does happen. When you have almost unregulated environment enabling oligarchy, any regulation, even on we know outright is bad or lawfare, is preferable to continuation of no-regulation environment. Something that badly or ineffectively regulated can be later fixed and refined, something that is not regulated at all creates systemic damage with taxpayers on the hook. I would rather deal with market distortions than 2B2F.

Phrase "any regulation is good" you keep clinging to was specifically referring to financial regulation, or Dodd-Frank if you want to label "any", where my point was, and still is, that it is preferable to badly regulate to allowing continuation of "business as usual".

WOW, even when Sinij is presented with his own wording, he calls is a "unrecognizable mess" and completely tries to deny he said it in the meaning he wrote it. He's either completely horrible at being specific or someone is off their medication.

Are you familiar with Mike Reed "flame warriors" work? Highly entertaining, you might even recognize yourself.

No Wolfgang, I did not understood (and last two attempts to assume failed) what Derid referred to because he twisted and changed quote to the point of altering fundamental meaning.

Let me demonstrate:





First quote is what you actually wrote, accusing me of writing unrecognizable mess and then later trying to denying it. Second quote is me altering your words to change the meaning.

Alright - here it is...

Boehner agreed to it, and then couldn't deliver.



Can you hear the rumbling sound? This is the sound of Obama's landslide. Republican position, lowering taxes and fiscal conservatism, was sold down the river and only obstructionist shenanigans that pandering to extreme right remains.

How many budgets have been passed under Obama? If you answered "zero" go to the head of the class. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to nail down Obama going into an election year. If he wants the tax cuts, put them in for a year. Even the hated GW Bush managed to get budgets passed when the Democrats controlled Congress.

As for Obama's reelection, that's already going to happen. He's going to win, but the Republicans will pick up seats in both houses.