GOP- Party of the rich

G=Greed
O=Over
P=People

TheTop 50 in Congress is pretty even with 23 out 50 being Republican.


Charity Givers
It's fact that the right gives more to charities than the left. So much for screaming about helping others. The left wants to rely on Government taking from everyone because they do not like to give as much. So forcing people Via taxation is "Fair" HORSE-SHIT!

Power vs. The rest of us

Just like being poor or impoverished doesn't care about what the color of your skin is, being rich and suckling on the tit of power doesn't care which side of the GoP/DNP you are on.

Super-committee fails to reach the deal



GOP would rather see random budget cuts, including $500bn from defense, than increase taxes on 1% from historic lows.

The increased taxes wouldnt help anything in any meaningful way, its just the Dems playing class warfare politics.

Budget cuts are good though. Since are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from china, best bet is to just chop huge pieces. Govt collects PLENTY of money in taxes.

Not raising taxes to appease the marxists makes sense, because its obvious we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Making it look like we are conceding a point that we need to tax more would be a big mistake. We tax enough.

If we just cut out everything Obama has done, returned to Clinton era entitlements, draw down the military , close a few bases that we dont really need overseas, bring the troops home, and refrain from any more unnecessary wars for a while we would be absolutely fine and able to grow out of our debts.

Its really pretty simple, but the Dems want to make a class warfare statement instead of being sensible and doing what is right for the country. But then again, even though the GOP only does whats right for the country half the time.. I cant think of any time off the top of my head where the Dems did anything that was good for the country.

/facepalm

Increasing tax revenues to pay off deficit isn't "meaningful" ? Historic high profits, historic low taxes, bailouts and bonuses all while everybody else but 1% struggles isn't "class warfare" for you?!



Really? "Sensible" to give another tax brake to the rich, and everyone else can go to hell? Why? Where are these magical jobs-created that were used to justify these taxes? In China?

Its not another break, its the status quo.

The fact that the effect of taxing them would be minor in the grand scheme of things, but you and your comrades are stuck on the issue with laser-like focus proves my point. Its an ideological point and an emotional point, but not a very practical one.

You are even calling it "another" tax break. I am all for closing loopholes, but without taking advantage of loopholes those who are "rich" pay higher rates.

People who make like 60k-200k really get hammered because they arent the "1%" but pay a huge share of the taxes. Every single time, when you give up the principle and agree to tax the "rich" its not the 1% who ends up getting it in the end. Its the middle class.

Everyone knows that the marxists "1%" really isnt about the super wealthy. Its about anyone who has more than they do.

Not quite. We are at historic lows and not for significant portion of modern history.





If you see deficit reduction as "minor in the grand scheme of things" why are we even having this discussion?



"Got mine" and "Greed is good" back at you.


Republicans, specifically trickle-down reaganomics sold these low taxes as a way to stimulate job creation. They proposed that we temporarily borrow money while keeping taxes lower to stimulate economy and job creation. Well, borrowed money party started and yet to finish, but where are the jobs?


I know where - China, India, Brazil.



So now that reaganomics were disproved beyond any point of doubt, maybe it is time to a) raise taxes b) stop borrowing and c) balance the budget?

We are well into "robber baron" era of wealth inequality.

A budget reduction measure is not taxing more so you can spend more, its not spending more.

You made me cheer when you said we are paying the lowest taxes in history, other then when there was no income tax, if that is true.

Just a little fyi what do you think the 1% should be taxed???

The amount that they will bring in with a new increase will be a drop in the ocean, so how is it going to save the world.

Short Answer: Enough to reverse concentration of wealth (and power) in too few hands. It isn't how much money top 1% gets (and I realize 1% isn't uniform group), it is how much undue influence that concentrated wealth has on US politics.

Taxation in top bracket should depend on how that income was earned. Bailouts and golden parachutes? Tax the fuck out of it. Small business hitting it big after 20 years of hard work? Minimal tax.

That sir, has nothing to do with the how much they are taxed and everything to do with the corruption in D.C. In fact, what you're describing is exactly how the tax code got as FUBAR'd as it is. They raise the percentage and then cut out loop holes for their buddies who fund their campaigns.

Precisely.

Plus, sinij is also proving the point that the Dem tax policy isnt about growing wealth for those who do not yet have it. Its about taking wealth from those that do. Which really doesnt help anyone.

If you want to punish corrupt bankers who thrive on bailouts, why not just stop bailing them out? No reason to raise tax rates on everyone.

Do you confirm or deny that wealth is interchangeable with power?

My personal point is that tax policy should be about increasing overall quality of life instead of growing numbers of excessive-consumption ultra wealthy. It is about distributing benefits of society in most effective and even way. Concentration of wealth (and power) is a symptom of a bigger problem, any system that encourages it is therefore flawed.

You like to talk about merit-based society. Does a CEO has 1,000+ times more merit than someone working as a rank and file member of the same organization?

Annnddddd BINGO!

Deny. However, wealth can be used to buy power or favors and power can be used to build wealth. If you don't believe the latter just ask Mrs. Pelosi and the rest of the crooks who get elected and come out the back side worth 100s of times more than when they went in.

How is that a "Deny" ?

This is the crux of our disagreement.

#1 You believe that taxation is a tool for taking from the wealthy and giving to others (also known as buying votes), while I believe that taxation is a tool that should only be used to provide as fair an environment as possible for free and open competition.

#2 If you believe that wealth doesn't concentrate in socialist/communist societies then I direct you to the ruling class of the former Soviet Union. They even had their own lanes on which to drive and their own special shopping centers that actually had food while everyone else was standing in line for a piece of bread.

#3 What business is it of mine or yours how much a CEO makes? To address your wobbley point, while the rank and file do open the doors each day and help the customers, what they do isn't rocket surgery (I ran a crew of those for 14 years, trust me, I can train a monkey to help customers). So, nearly anyone can do those jobs, but not just anyone has the skills or intelligence to ensure that a multibillion dollar company continues to run efficiently and effectively thereby affording the door openers the opportunity to work if that is what they choose to do. I personally am a living testament to the fact that hard work and dedication pay off. I worked my way up, saved enough to quit and finish school and am in school now. All without a degree or student loan debt.

#4 I know that the real American Dream is NOT home ownership. The American Dream is making a living doing what you love and providing every opportunity for yourself and family. It is having the freedom to pursue your dreams, not standing in line with your hand out to get something for nothing from someone who earned it.

That, is the difference between you and me. I believe that all men are created equal and the U.S.A was founded on the premise that they should have equal opportunity to pursue their dreams. You believe that the greatest country the world has ever seen should punish success and reward sloth through confiscatory taxation and a misguided attempt to provide a mythical beast called "social justice." Also known as reparations, wealth redistribution, and social equality. All things neither intended nor guaranteed by our founders. Nor are they guarantee-able by any government comprised of fallible men.

You asserted that wealth and power are interchangeable, implying that they are the same thing. That's not accurate. While one can be used as a tool to obtain the other, they are still only tools. The only thing that matters in this equation is the intent of the person wielding the tool and the consequences of the outcome.

For instance, money in the hands of an altruistic person could either be used to buy power than can be used to "help" others like our current system, or that same money can be used to establish an organization that directly helps those in need get back on their feet and begin earning for themselves again. So, you have to decide here which is better. Is it better to give a man food and make him dependent on you for future food (that's what we call a slave), or is it better to teach him to help himself and let him be free?

Your graphic includes anyone who makes over 100k. Thats not rich in many areas. Another thing your graph ignores is the fact that MANY, MANY more high earners were created in that time frame.

The 80's, and particularly the 90's had an extremely high degree of class mobility, which is the real key to judging the fairness of a society.

Also, I wonder what your graph would look like if it included the housing crash. It says it includes income derived from Capital Gains, but is it counting hypothetical income - ie: is it including rising home values while they were skyrocketing, or just real income from dividends etc?

Keep in mind also, that cost of living in many areas rose to such a degree - in large part because earnings were. People making 100k in any market arent exactly the people pictured in your cartoon caption, and people living in expensive market making 100k are just making average money.

Comparisons and charts such as that one play a big part in getting people who seriously study the subject matter to turn a deaf ear to those on the Left.

Also related to that graph, which I'm sure does not take into account, are the now more and more woman in the workplace.

Up until a time in history it was social doctrine that woman should stay home and tend the home and children and solely rely on the husband for income. This is not the case today and a 2 income family now has more incoming coming into the house which would increase those figures. Are 2 income families now the top 10% and should we piss on their parade?

This also, in my opinion, has led to the increase in social issues around our countries youth but alas I will stay away from those for now.

Have you read "Y" axis label? It says "share of total income going to top 10%". Top 10% is defined as all families making about $110K per year.

This graph indirectly demonstrates that concentration of wealth, by examining % of all income going to top 10% of earners, started going up right around time Reagan economic reforms were enacted... and is still going up. That was easrly 80s.



This goes contrary to the information presented in this graph.
Increasing number of high earners would lower % of total income taken by top 10%, because it would re-define top 10% by moving cutoff higher. If anything, this graph suggesting that top 10% now earns more than ever in post-WWII era. This is likely (!speculation!) due to the bottom falling out, meaning bottom 90% making less money, not top 10% making more.

What I'm saying is it doesn't state whether that is a 1 or 2 income family and the values of a 1 income family > 100k per year isn't the same as 2 incomes 50k+50k.

I think that has a bearing on the data in that if we were back in the day and only comparing apples to apples then 100k would be a 1 incoming family where the wife/mother does not provide that type of income.

I understand what you are saying, and it is reasonable assertion IF supported by data. As you mentioned it is "I think" until you show us some numbers.

The implicit point is that 100k being the top 10% is a very low number, and if you were to stratify it down to 70k for a family it would be a pretty even curve, and geography would have a lot to do with the earnings.

So, the graph says little because a family making 70k/yr in Canton Ohio lives as well as, if not better than a family making 100k/yr in many parts of California for example. The cost of living is just very different.

Also, good point on the 2-income families Ictinike.

Top 10% isn't defined as 109K, it happens to be that number.

In order to make the assertions you're making you need to be able to tell us what that cut-off number was in 1982, adjusted for inflation. If it was lower then your argument seems to make some sense, but if it was higher then Derid's argument is more correct. Either way the number of assertions you can reasonably make from this one graph are very few and very general.

I suggest you read the paper cited in the graph if you have any questions about these numbers.

I know conservatives wish that this wasn't the case, but a lot of wealth inequality, lack of domestic job creation and decimated middle class can be traced directly to Reagan policies.

One assertion that you can and should make is that wealth does not trickle down, rather it is very evident that it concentrates at the top. This leads to inevitable conclusion that the only way to address wealth inequality is via progressive taxation.

They already pay 35% what do you propose? 50,60,75%? Because under Obama's taxation on millionaires and billionaires ( you know those millionaires & billionaires that make $250K a year) would rise. Where would you start the tax hike and how much? Remember, you're trying to be FAIR!

Non Sequitur. Your caption and usage tried to imply that the top 10% was a bunch of fat cats. That there was some sort of big break between them, and the other 90%. I made that point that the scale keeps pretty smooth and steady down to a lot larger segment than that top 10%, and that a much larger portion than 10% lives pretty darn well.

So why is unequal wealth distribution so bad in the first place?

What is import? That people closer to the bottom can still live well, or that nobody has more than they do? The gap between the living standards of the 70percentile and the 1 percentile of the population in the USA is lower than in any society in history.

The 70percentile still typically have cars, and houses and PCs and clean food and plumbing and electricity and big TVs and internet etc. The top percent just has nicer houses and cars etc, and the very top has some additional conveniences.

If we go socialist, the haves will be the politicians and bureaucrats, and the have-nots will be everyone else. I would much rather market forces and market assigned value be the driving factor regarding wealth distribution than politics. And when you argue that those with money use their money to pursue unfair advantages, you realize that that lobbying/unfair advantages mostly come from the govt.

Your arguments regarding money and power, are arguments for smaller govt, not larger govt.

Where I would change our tax code? First, I'd start by stopping mortgage interest write off, it distorts the market. Second, I'd tax capital gains as a regular income. Third, I'd create legislation to penalize (in tax code) one-time bonuses with intention of shifting to long term share purchase options. Last but not least, 1mil plus needs to be a lot higher than it is now and/or loopholes need to be closed.

We already covered this in excruciating detail.



If you compare to medieval societies, perhaps you are right. Not so much if you compare to any other First-World country at the preset time.

It boggles my mind that you'd make these claims when I linked data showing POVERTY IN USA at record high levels. You do know what BELOW POVERTY LINE means, right?

This is what 1% consist of, while 99% picking up the tab for bailouts.

There is not a single one of us who thinks that this is not wrong, if those banks took bailout funds. If they didn't then who the hell cares how much they pay their employees. If you don't like it, put your money elsewhere.

This whole conversation boggles my mind.

There have always been rich and there have always been poor. History doesnt lie. Deal with it or get a guillotine and a mob and do something about it.

Donk nails it!

So now 126k is rich?

You do know that a lot of the banks were forced to take the bailouts.

That's so cute. You got an old man to draw pictures to distract from all the half truths and outright lies he's telling.

I don't know...numbre tre seems pretty true to me...

"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Colbert

Really? You think government creates jobs? Good luck with that. I hope you get a really great job with the government and that all the people who go to work everyday to pay taxes so the government can pay you never lose their jobs.

I'm just saying the government employs a lot of people, if you cut back government will that not be anti productive?

No, it may hurt for some bureaucrats until they find another job where they actually produce something useful rather than create impediments to the folks who do. As government gets smaller the marketplace will expand and more than make up for any lost gub'ment jobs.

so you are talking about cops serving McDonalds, and Mail Men, working at gas stations?

Take the Postal Service for example. If they privatize it they would be able to save most of those jobs they otherwise will cut. The pay may go down, then again does someone really need to make nearly $30 an hour for putting mail into a machine that sorts it for them?

Part of the reason for cutting spending in Government is to cut the waste, Canada has cut several things like Education, Wildlife & Fisheries as well as Environmental projects. Yet they have turned their debt issues around from the 1990's. Now we are in their place with debt and such. Cut spending and you cut waste, it's working for Canada! Right now there's a huge need for skilled labor such as Welding, Machinists, as well as other areas. Get some knowledge in those fields and you won't have to worry about finding a job.

If we need to cut back on Government then getting rid of workers will happen. I don't want to fire them but give me the power and you will see a lot of pink slips.

Cops are local Gov jobs(city,county,state) we are talking federal.
Mail jobs?? Lets find a company that loses as much money as the Post Office and see if they can survive. If they cannot break even or make a profit then they need to trim till they do. Which I believe the Post Office is now doing so after many years running in the red.

Gas station workers and burger flippers may not be high paying jobs but its better then Gov welfare, well to me it is.

This.

so now that those questions have been answered, would any of you settle for a job like McDonalds over your current jobs or a job yielding better benefits? Is it fair to ask it of others?

Well, for starters I'd never take a federal government job. But the fact is you're asking the wrong question. The correct question is, do two wrongs make a right? If not then the wrong of the government taking money from one person to "create" a job for another cannot be corrected by allowing the problem to propagate.

Having said all of that, if you're working for the government and the best job you can get afterward is flipping burgers at McDonald's then perhaps you were an overpaid leech with no skills to begin with.

FYI - this is why people with doctorates in English still work at Starbuck's.

You don't think one american telling another american how to live and what job he can and cannot have is a bit of a self entitlement issue? Whereby you impose your beliefs and sense of fairness upon another based purely from your own perspective, using your own justifications. While trying to maintain the your argument using various vague common detractors to support it, much in the way a fortune teller supports her predictions using commonalities and suppositions.

Getting fired because the Government needs to cut back is the same as a company laying off.
If you support Government keeping everyone on the job even when they cannot afford to then you support yet another welfare program, one that I might add would be a very high paying welfare program that would be unfair to the rest of the welfare people who get 80% less in monies and benefits.

Who is telling anyone how to live and what job they can have???

Settle???? No.
You are assuming that my company is going to lay me off???
If so I would take what ever job I needed to to make money and work my way into a better job.

Is it fair to ask others to get a job. Yes it is.

I'm not telling anyone how they can or cannot live or what kind of job they must have. Anyone in this country is free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon my freedoms...like by taking money from me to give to someone else. So, if by "self entitlement" you mean that I want to decide what to do with the money that I worked hard for, then you're damn right I have a self entitlement issue. You'll have to forgive me for feeling entitled to the things that I work for.

While I was at the Postal Service I seen it both ways. There were several people with a lot of education that could make just as much money using their degree's as sorting mail using a machine. However there were more that could barely read or speak in complete sentences without using slang or whatever gibberish they were talking.

I acquired a skilled labor while I was in high school through Vocational Technical Training. I'm using that skill now and it seems there's HUGE lack in skilled labor. I can just about go to any place where there's manufacturing and get a job welding. With my experience I could ask for top pay and most likely get it because of the lack of people wanting to get into the welding field. Plus I have 12 years of Flux core and hard wire welding as well as 6 years of Submerged Arc welding 1/8 inch wire.

If they allow that Keystone pipeline to come through, I can go get more pipe welding training. Then get in line for the $150K a year pay. That's what they are paying for experience field pipe welders.

... and we all enter land of rainbows and unicorns.

You are funny man. What do you think will happen to teachers, police, border guards and all other "some bureacrats" if you cut their jobs in this economy? That's right kids, they will all go on the UI dole for next couple years. Plus they will further clamp down on consumer spending. Deficit goes up, social outlays go up and taxable income goes down.

One hell of a "recovery" you are going to end up with.

Then start suggesting ways to make "gas station workers and burger flippers" a survivable wage occupation. You know, like affording health insurance that won't be offered with minimal wage shit jobs.

they already had a job, you decided they should get a new one.



point taken, good show Sir.

The hard truth is, if this is all you can do, then oh-fucking-well. Get two jobs. I've done it. Hell I've had three at one time because that's what it took to feed myself. If someone isn't willing to work then he doesn't get to eat, period, end of story. If this hurts your feelings or makes you want to run crying to your mommy, then so be it. The truth hurts. Life's not fair. Even our poorest citizens are the wealthiest 1% of the world.

This is the same false argument that Drakiis just made and was refuted. I'm not the one living in rainbows and unicorns land. Perhaps the border guards are federal employees, but since the government puts them in prison and grants immunity and citizenship to the criminals when the guards try to do their jobs, I'd imagine most of them would rather work elsewhere anyway.

"they already had a job, you decided they should get a new one."



I don't recognize your argument.

I assume from what you have been saying that all federal jobs should be totally worry free and if you have a federal job then you shall not lose it no matter what happens.

Welcome to Sinijland.

no, just saying you guys want people to change their job, your demanding people be fired or laid off..

Yes people get fired/laid off. Grats on pointing out the obvious

You as I said are saying fed jobs should be free of worry and no one should ever be laid off.

the bottom line of this thread is people want other people to lose their jobs.


Oh the sad state of humanity..

So letting the country go further into debt is better?

You make a good liberal, just say stuff that makes you look good and not worry about the shit that really runs the world.

Name calling will earn you no free Kaotic Points for that half off convenience store milk, and making assumptions about me only weakens your point.

The debt is only part of the problem.

So being a liberal is now name calling, checks his list of words and makes correction.

Why should the middle class and poor pay for the wars no-bid-contract & war-profiteers 1%ers got us into and pay for the financial shenanigans lets-deregulated 1%ers got us into. They got _filthy rich_ off it, but your solution is to cut a bunch of middle class fed jobs and cut social programs poor rely on?

You got me. I'm just an evil hatemonger who doesn't want peace, love and puppy dogs for everyone. Or maybe I'm a realist and I know that your socialist utopia will never EVER happen. Its not possible on a large scale.

Not sure what the first part means. As for making assumptions about your political view points, if it looks like a duck and quacks like one...

The debt really is only part of the problem. However, continuing to spend money we don't have while all the credit ratings agencies are standing on the precipice of downgrading us, while we print money we don't have to give to Greece via the IMF, while the Fed continues to buy our debt with more money we don't have, while the dollar continues its death spiral, while Putin gets set for a military take over of Russia, while Iran tries to start a war with us and with Israel, while China publicly announces that they are expanding their navy to "protect world peace," we should certainly continue business as usual and take care of all the downtrodden by stealing from one citizen to give to another. Here's a question for you. Who will take care of the poor when our country collapses?

You are not a realist, you are an astroturfed turkey that swollowed propaganda whole, without questioning or understanding logical conclusion to it; you think you are asking for fiscal conservatism but instead you are enabling oligarchy. Plus nobody here is asking for "socialist utopia", we simply don't want to live in your cronyistic dystopia and unlike you we have connected the dots.

I came to my conclusions long before the Tea Party came to be so even if your assertion that it is astroturf is true, then it doesn't apply to me. Nice try. You fail again.

For the record you've now implied that I'm stupid and implied that I'm ignorant and you've started name calling. Lest you forget that's a tactic that you've accused the rest of us of repeatedly. So, without any facts to support your claims, and lacking any of the numbers we've repeatedly asked you for I'm going to leave you to your arguments with anyone still willing to suffer the verbal abuse you so readily dispense. Oh, and I'm going to call you a name, you hypocrite.

I said:



You read:



Seems like a personal problem to me.

Increasing Middle Class

Good studies actually. Your last quote makes an especially good point - those with talent and unique or in-demand skills can be very successful. Just having some muscle isnt worth much anymore, and is worth even less when you have open trade with countries with low standards of living where muscle is even cheaper.

Change always brings opportunity as well as pitfalls. I just wish people would focus in absolute terms as to what the poor do have, instead of trying to make a wealth contrast. Pure jealousy does not actually help the poor. the only things historically shown to truly help the poor over an extended period are economic liberty, so they have the same chances in the market as wealthier people - and education.

A good example is regulations... some regulations are good, but most regulations are the result of powerful lobbyists ( for the 1% ) trying to use lawfare to strike a blow at existing or possible competition. Which is why I disagree so strongly with your "any regulation is a good regulation" stance. I find it so ironic that you who wants to try to strip wealth from the top until there is no income disparity, because you are afraid of the political power it grants the wealthy - turn around and side with the wealthy as they concoct strawman arguments to kill off their competition and fund lobbyists and PR campaigns with said wealth.

Also, a big flaw in your overall plan to eliminate the wealthy... is the fact that wealth is now global. Do you truly see the "superrich" who can go anywhere, and are the prime offenders in regards to your political power observations will simply stay in the USA and allow all their wealth to be taken? Of course they wont. And USA wealth redistribution wont even effect those who are lobbying our system but dont live in the USA in the first place.

I think you have a good goal, but your solutions just have so many consequences that I can only think you have not considered.

I read that study more like 'if you are not in finances, you won't be doing that well'. Is gambling with other people money is where we want our brightest minds to go, as oppose to science, engineering, education?



Please put your soap box away. Your loaded language use is not going to make your weak point any stronger. Discouraging accumulation of wealth at the top will make the country more prosperous, because other people will get greater share of this wealth. Current culture of golden parachutes and ridiculous 'perfomance' bonuses not actually tied to performance causes a lot of harm all throughout the system.



They are more than welcome to move to more tax-friendly environment, like Somalia. We covered this before, US enables wealth creation, while mobile-rich can take their existing wealth out and move elsewhere they would not be able to continue create this wealth without US.



Again, we already covered this. Your alternative of complete deregulation and reliance only on free market leads to oligarchy. History proven beyond any shadow of the doubt that "free market" is intrinsically unstable system and has to be supported with clear and strict regulation.

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.

BINGO!

Can you explain conservative fixation with budgets, specifically recent episode of Republican grandstanding and obstructionism that got US downgraded?

lol

WOW

Still waiting for an explanation...



-----------------


Also some good reading material on the topic.

Poor not paying enough taxes

Looks to me like the debt went up 4.5 trillion during W's 8 years, and the same amount in Obama's 3 years. For this I condemn both. I would say Obama's worse since he's doing it faster, but the end result is the same: the end of the dollar.

As to your other link, I wouldn't disagree with your premise,and I don't disagree that they would have to "pay more". However, they might not pay more in taxes, they might just have to pay for more things themselves that the government picks up now. 50 million people are on food stamps. 3.1 million households receive section 8, earned income tax credit PAYS people for paying their taxes, etc. That has to end.

I would suggest either a flat tax with 15k per person exempt, OR that the Congress passes a budget, then the tax rate is changed for that year to pay it off. People would see what happened if they voted poorly REAL QUICK if they had to pay for it the next year.

Now Sinij, before you mention corporate welfare, I'm against all of that too.

Re: Obamas' debt limit - he inherited Bush's fuckups, half of it is bailouts that kept entire economy from melting down. As much as I hated 2B2F and bailouts, alternative to them is even less attractive. It could have been avoided pre 2002, when Obama took over it was all but inevitable.

How do you see it ending and what going to happen to people that rely on it? Do you think they can magically get non-existent jobs in the current economy? Should they just starve to death? Even if they do get a job, do you think minimum wage is survivable wage?

There should have been NO bailouts. No one has been able to explain to me how the bailouts fixed anything. They were band-aids that made the next financial crisis impossible to deal with.

By pre-2002 could you also say pre-2000? I know you badly want to blame this on poor old Bush but both sides were to blame, and if I had to pick a single person as scapegoat it would have to be Barney Frank. He was the one who sat on ( or chaired ) the committees that were responsible for this mess.

No one should rely on it. There should be no food stamps or section 8 at the federal level at all- they need to end.

The states can decide what level they would like to support non productive person at. For example, in California, we have decided that we should spend about 88% of the state budget on social services (this includes education). Other states choose to spend less. Texas, for example, has a border with Mexico around 6 times as long as California's, yet they have 1/3 of the number of illegal aliens living there. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that illegals are not allowed federal or state welfare in Texas, while they are allowed both in California. California's welfare is also more bountiful.
If illegal aliens can afford to send $20 billion dollars per year back to Mexico, it is because that $20 billion dollars is being subsidized by the US taxpayer.

As for the rest (most) of the people on food stamps: they reason that the number is so high is not because there are more poor people, though there are slightly more, it's because the government made it so much easier to qualify. Same with section 8. In California you can now use food stamps to buy fast food.

How many adults do you think starve to death in the US per year? My guess is that it's near zero. The only people who starve to death or are even malnourished in the US are kids whose parents don't feed them and old people whose caregivers do the same. The number one health problem in the US is obesity, not starvation. And it is even more pronounced in the poor.

As for the magical jobs, well they may or may not appear. A lot depends on other factors. I would suggest that this new Department Obama has created certainly won't help anything; it may get legions of unemployed snitches, whistleblowers, inspectors, bureaucrats and other cockblockers back to work but it's going to be a big damper on any business that actually makes anything. More stuff moving to China, rad.

Your argument that all "non productive" people relying on social programs are just lazy is typical conservative drivel and is not fact-based. I don't know why rank-and-file conservatives hate idea of social safety nets, but these nets is what enables civil society we live in.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "lazy". Who said I hate social safety nets? YOU. I chose two programs, expanded on them, provided details to support my argument, and you rejected it out of hand without thinking about it.

Your thought processes are lazy. You seem to think that you can post graphs and links which you barely understand, taunt people into explaining them, then poke holes in their arguments while refusing to answer any counter-questions.

Note carefully how you never addressed any of my points. Explain how illegal aliens can afford to send so much money back to Mexico. Explain why the poor have an epidemic of obesity instead of starvation. Explain why the number of poor people under Obama has risen by 1 million, and the number on food stamps has risen by almost 20 million. Explain how these safety nets are helping people rather than destroying the family and breeding generations of dependency.

Cost of living difference between Mexico and US is what enables seasonal workers to work part of the year in US and live off it (in Mexico). If you ever drove through California you'd notice shack towns right next to the field where these people live - no electricity, no plumbing but they tolerate it for part of the year. Plus this wouldn't be possible year-round or in harsher climate/seasons. As to reason more migrant workers in California - this is simply because that where all agriculture (and jobs) are. As to illegals getting "full ride" - this is another conservative nonsense that is not based on any facts.


Poor Diets. It costs significantly less to eat high-calories corn syrup sweetened fast food. Eating well is already out of affordability range for many and it is only going to get worse with global food costs going up.

Recession and record unemployment, with middle class and skilled workers competing for jobs traditionally held by less educated "poor people". Some places are now asking for Bachelors to pump gas and flip burgers, and they can because there are so many people out of jobs.

You think people choose to stay poor/on food stamps? You are delusional. They are, because they end up in a position where it is only choice. You cut this and they will turn to crime. In effect, you are paying them to a) not rob you b) stay out of prisons. It is cost-effective, because often times incarceration is inevitable alternative.

YES and you certainly do not know the human spirit as well as you think and possibly should stop trying to find them solutions.

The bottom line is sinij wants to be like every other nanny state/socialist country. The founders of this country did something exceptional. The world now had a choice, to stay in the nanny states they were in, or go to the new country that allows you to work freely and be able to buy their own land and run their lives as they see fit.

Liberals want us to become that nanny state, the more we allow the Government to take over, the less liberties we will have. Apparently to some liberties aren't that big of a deal! Instead of turning this country into Canada, europe ect. Let's become 4merica once again. Without the nanny state. If you want a nanny state there are plenty of options to go there and live.

Your lack of understanding history is quite shocking, but your projecting of your own believes on "founders" is typical conservatism.

You wanting a nanny state is shocking. Especially when you claim to like a lot of Ron Pauls Idea's.

Unlike you, I understand inevitable results and consequences if everything your fringe right demagogues advocate becomes a reality. To say that all of US, including you and me, going to be very negatively impacted is huge understatement.

I like Ron Pauls (and many other conservative ideas) because I am not a leftist/socialist you want to make out of me. I am as centrist as it gets, and the simple fact that you see me in "leftist/socialist" light tells volumes about how far right your ideology took you. You are well into fringe, and so is a lot of your party, and the fact that you are in intentional denial about it is rather amusing.

If Reagan to run today he would be labeled RINO by your ilk and wouldn't make it past primaries.

Don't tell him he's stupid, tell him what actually happened. Please.

Sorry, personal attack are getting at me, so I am no longer as civil as I should.

At the time US constitution was written it was by far most pro-people government since the Roman Republic. This was the time when royalty-above-law, serfdom and landlord elite was the norm. "Nanny States" assertion is just...

I agree that his use of "nanny state" is inaccurate but the overarching idea behind his post is not the state of governance world wide in 1776 but what the intent was of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence and the folks who ratified the constitution.

No, "nanny state" was core oh his argument, as in constitution was written to save us from the nanny state. Exact opposite was the case, constitution was written to empower us and to protect us. At the time, constitution and declaration of independence was civil rights movement and constitutionalists were civil rights advocates.

Yes I know the Constitution was written to protect and empower us. I was simply trying to convey the point that no other country had done what our founders did. I shouldn't have used to term nanny state, more like Monarchies. Again my point was that nobody else had empowered the people, in fact it was opposite Governments were empowered.

Now that he has clarified his point and made mine, would you care to respond?

You will have to restate your question, "clarification" was to core meaning of the argument.

Its not worth my effort.

You really should meditate on the absurdity of this statement. Multiple levels of absurdity.

Eatinghealthy costs more.

Lots of flaws in that article, not the least of which is it doesnt include farmer markets - just 3 supermarkets. Also, it gives no guidelines on how they chose to achieve the "higher nutrients" listed - potassium, vitamin D and dietary fiber.

In fact anyone can debunk this article by going to their local supermarket. I know, because I do all my own shopping and am quite informed on nutrition and cost. Also, I have to avoid a couple common things found in processed foods like excessive MSG - so I always read labels and nutritional info.

Additionally, you mentioned fast food - but even your article mentioned that fast food is in fact more expensive.

Finally, its obvious that cheap calories mean that people can get more calories for less money. The fact that people eat to much says something about the choices these people make. Its the silliest thing ever to say that people are fat because they are poor. They are fat because they eat too much. 1000 calories is 1000 calories, period.

I would say the more likely correlation between healthy eating and money is tied to education and imperative. It has nothing to do with the fact that there is less money to spend.

People are fat because they ether a) eat too much b) eat wrong stuff. Ignoring b) is grossly oversimplifying the problem.

I will try to dig for the article I am basing my opinions on, but transportation costs also should be factored into this discussion. Some poor (projects) communities are under-served, where going to a grocery store vie public transportation adds substantial overhead to a limited budget.

Remember, we are not talking about you and me, where we can simply drive to a grocery store of our choice, buy fresh food and cook it the same day.

Now who's oversimplifying? No one has to go to the grocery store every day in order to eat fresh food.

Are you suggesting sustenance farming? Please tell me I misunderstood you.

Many of the most nutritional foods, vitamin/etc wise actually have minimal calories. City distribution is not much of an issue, as cities naturally have large logistics hubs and infrastructure. I cant speak for all cities, but in all that I have personally seen - there are ever increasing amounts of low cost fresh food markets and stores.

In rural areas, transportation costs are indeed higher - however these people typically have the land to grow their own. Its amazing what you can get out of a fairly small patch of broccoli and cabbage and beans just by hoeing the weeds and applying some seven dust to keep the bugs down. Home canning is also very practical, in fact its been a part of my family for generations. Seed is also very inexpensive.

If people are eating the wrong things, its a choice. Or at least in the vast majority of situations. With 300 million odd people in this country, I am sure there are some exceptions. Perhaps certain, very regional geographies have issues. If someone chooses to live in a desert, for example.

I would still be interested to see your article though, and how it pertains to govt.

Obesity and poverty

Poor are priced out of healthful eating


The Connection Between Obesity and Poverty

Food Price Index hits record high

Poverty hits record high

Connect the dots.

I think you mean subsistence but no, I'm suggesting that nearly everyone has a refrigerator and a pantry storage area.

Your quotes contradict each other. One says "barely adequate" the other says "not quite enough". 1) which is it? 2) I thought food stamps are supposed to be supplemental.

The Politics of Plutocracy



This just in - The Economist now known as The Socialist, because they are pretty much repeated income inequality arguments I was making verbatim, with the graph and all.

Just in case someone here got selective amnesia.

Have you seen the price of arugula at whole foods?

http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/slemche/academic_f10/webfiles_f10/myth%20of%20inequality.pdf

this dopey graph has been debunked. Saez himself said people were misinterpreting it and misusing it.

If you ever read the economist, you would know that its a commie rag, meaning that you agree with whats written there. should be a dead giveaway by now.

you should consider expanding your horizons and reading stuff that you dont agree with. i read the economist so there ya go, lead by example

Such socialist ideas like free trade and free markets, and such renown communists like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher?

Allright-y.

Graph is from peer reviewed paper, this attempt to discredit is not even scientific publication. I will go with peer reviewed paper.

I guess you missed the parts about "misinterpretation" and "misuse". There is a theme here, and one you could benefit from catching on to. Data is meaningless if you do not interpret it correctly.

Misusing factual data, does not a strong argument create.

Is all data misused in your book when it doesn't agree with your personal opinion on how things ought to be?

No, just when people try to make it support positions that the data doesnt support. Or point out that the scope of the question at hand is much larger than implied by a particular interpretation.

For a quick breakdown of the bulk of your arguments - see my previous Sharks on a Beach example in the other thread.

I guess this is as close as we going to get to you acknowledging "the graph".

I always acknowledged the "graph" - its the conclusions you drew from it that were at contention. I find it odd that you take issue with me not trudging through some of your links, yet on the other hand - you rarely even seem to read what people post themselves.

Truly mind boggling.

As a rule, if I don't read the link, for whatever reasons, I do not comment on it. I suggest you too adopt this practice.

Why then do you comment on posts that you also apparently neglect to read? Strikingly odd behavior.

I must have not read them well enough, because why else would I disagree with your perfectly-reasoned opinions?

/sarcasm

If the issue at hand was simply agreement/disagreement, this quote would have made sense.

However, you have openly admitted to making things up and pretending myself or others have said things other than what was actually said because you were upset at being "ganged up on".

So... yeah.

Can you provide me with a quote, because I don't recall ever stating anything remotely like that? I am not surprised you would see it this way, but going as far as putting words in my mouth is too much.


Have you seen recent Atlantic article on Gingrich mega-donor? Ouch.

Yeah because Obama doesn't have any Billionaires donating money to his re-election. We all know Soros is in the poor house, right next to Oprah.

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama surpassed all other presidential rivals in a record-setting 2008 U.S. election campaign that generated $1.7 billion in spending by candidates.

Campaign spending was more than double that of four years ago, the candidates’ Federal Election Commission filings show.

In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier. Obama accounted for 44 percent of the money spent by the 2008 candidates.

The FEC filings, covering the campaigns through the end of November, marked the first time that total spending by all presidential candidates surpassed $1 billion.

“A billion dollars may not go far to bail out Wall Street, but it’s still an enormous sum for a presidential race,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group.

By contrast, all candidates spent a total of $820.3 million in 2004 and $500.9 million in 2000.

My objections to this are not mega-rich donor part, but what this donor stands for and how money is donated via PAC.