• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

TeleKat said:
Economic scarcity is used to refer to a state where resources are limited. It is the most basic and fundamental economic law in every school of thought on the planet.
Click to expand...

Not just limited...insufficient. Earths resources are not insufficient to our needs.
 
mac said:
Not just limited...insufficient. Earths resources are not insufficient to our needs.
Click to expand...

Neither statement is correct.

1. Economic scarcity refers to limited resources. All resources are scarce.

2. Earth's resources are depleting at a signifcant rate due to perpetual waste and overcrowding.
 
Conservative said:
Right, forgot how specific I have to be with liberals, I was talking FEDERAL INCOME TAXES not use taxes.

I care about people being taxed even you. If you care so much about what the govt gets then send more of your income to the Federal Govt. and stop trying to spread liberal misery equally to everyone else. What is it about liberals who worry so much about how much money goes to the govt. yet never sends in more than required. If you truly cared, help your local bureaucrats out by sending them more of your own money
Click to expand...

So if it's not the Federal income tax, it isn't a tax. Maybe when your purpose is to blindly defend Republicans. I guess EVERY governor can say they never raised taxes then.
 
TeleKat said:
Neither statement is correct.

1. Economic scarcity refers to limited resources. All resources are scarce.
Click to expand...

That's just incorrect. You need to go back to the books.

2. Earth's resources are depleting at a signifcant rate due to perpetual waste and overcrowding.
Click to expand...

That they are depleting at any rate does not automatically mean that they are insufficient for our needs.
 
mac said:
Personal financial mismanagement is not a fault of society. It is the fault of the individual.
Click to expand...

You're just arguing in circles here.

I didn't call them "positives" and you should evaluate your own statement here.
Click to expand...

OK, but to demonstrate that living standards hadn't declined that's what you referenced. If not for that purpose, why mention new autos and college? Surely you meant something...

Ok, then, where do these policies come from then?
Click to expand...

You tell me. Or, better, instead of asking me vague questions, make your point.

Unions are not Un-American. Forcing someone to join one so that they are "allowed" to get a job is un-American.
Click to expand...

The workplace votes for a union. If there is a union in that workplace, not joining is just a decision to enjoy the negotiated pay and benefits, but freeload off others who pay their dues. And if workers don't like working in a union shop, find another job with better pay and benefits. Pretty straightforward. And not un-American for employees who benefit from a union to pay for those benefits.
 
mac said:
How many sections did he veto and how many are specifically named in that reference?
Click to expand...

What is it with the out of left field questions?

If you have evidence he vetoed the individual mandate he is on tape applauding, let's see it.
 
Conservative said:
I deal in personal experience, dealing with actual people, and human behavior that leads to those numbers you love posting. Without context your charts are meaningless and you ought to know that. Who makes up those numbers? How were the numbers captured, where did the data come from? ....
Click to expand...

If you have other data, I'd love to see it. Really. As it is, I can only go on the evidence available.

If good jobs are gone what have these people done to secure new good jobs? Did they take their education and experience learned on the jobs they had to better themselves or did they sit on their asses whining and complaining about the govt. not doing enough to hurt those who did take those opportunities and capitalized on them?
Click to expand...

I don't really know how to respond. There are so many straw men in that post I don't know where to start.

So what should an average employee who does the average work and puts in the average amount of effort pay and who decides what is fair for that person? Let me help you, the market decides except in the liberal world who believe it is the Government's responsibility to tell a private business person what to pay their workers....
Click to expand...

NOWHERE have I argued that the government should tell a business what to pay their workers.

You may believe you don't want equal outcome but in order to mandate shared responsibility that is what you are going to get or have to demand.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Equal outcomes are impossible and would be disastrous for the economy. I'm not a conservative - it doesn't mean I am a communist.

It scares me when I see people like you who I doubt ever invested a dollar of your own into a business for if you did how would you feel about a govt. entity telling you what you have to pay your employees and what you have to pay the govt. in taxes and regulations? What you want to do is lump all businesses together when the vast majority of those paying at or a little above minimum wage are small businesses not large companies.....
Click to expand...

I don't know who you're responding to but it's not me.

I'll respond to some of that though. You're imagining some set of "liberal" positions, then assigning them to me based on nothing. I do not lump all businesses together. For one, Walmart IMO represents all that is rotten about our economy. They move into town and drive dozens of those small local businesses out. I spend a dollar in Walmart and a little stays local from the wages, some gets wired to Arkansas, a healthy chunk to shareholders, and the rest to pay wages for goods made in China, because Walmart makes that all but a condition of goods landing on their shelves. So it's a giant vacuum of money out of local communities. As a bonus, Walmart has more employees on public assistance than any other employer - so Tennessee taxpayers pick up a healthy chunk of their benefits. So I go to Walmart when someone drags me there, and do all I can to shop in local stores, those small businesses you're talking about. I know it doesn't do any good, but it's what I can do.

You just don't realize how foolish you sound or how poorly informed you are. I competed against Wal-Mart and other large businesses. I know what they paid their employees, I employed over 1200 people, hired, fired, and promoted many, and had my own money invested in the business so pardon me if I don't give your posts much credibility.
Click to expand...

It helps me 'sound' foolish when you make up positions I don't hold. You somehow think I don't respect what you do (or did) and you couldn't be more wrong.

I'll put it this way. When we (our leaders, both parties, Clinton was one) decided to force U.S. manufacturers to compete with low wage, no environmental rules, air so polluted you can't see a quarter mile on clear days, a rigged currency, and sub $1 per hour wages, the country decided to close 10s of thousands of manufacturing plants, lose millions of good paying jobs, and drive down blue collar wages - that was the inevitable and presumably planned outcome.

All you do as employer is play by the rules of the game. So when an employer closes a plant in Lenoir City near me and moves it to China because it's cheaper and he can get his goods on a Walmart shelf, I have NO beef with that employer at all. When the remaining employers in that town have 500 newly unemployed workers and the market rate goes down for labor, they'd be idiots to not lower wages to the market rate. My problem is the rules just guarantee a bad result for lots of good people willing to work very hard, but who have no good jobs TO take. That's what the numbers show.

That's it. I have no beef with employers like you playing by the rules of the game set by people in rooms we don't even know exist.
 
Conservative said:
Reagan raised use taxes, if you don't use the service or product you don't pay the taxes. You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund or what taxes you pay
Click to expand...

He also raised income taxes - many times. And payroll taxes.
 
JasperL said:
You're just arguing in circles here.
Click to expand...

No, no I'm not. You're ignoring reality.

OK, but to demonstrate that living standards hadn't declined that's what you referenced. If not for that purpose, why mention new autos and college? Surely you meant something...
Click to expand...

Living standards haven't declined. They appear to have declined because individuals today tend to take on greater debt for those shiney things and that lowers their apparent net worth.

You tell me. Or, better, instead of asking me vague questions, make your point.
Click to expand...

My point is that most "the rich people are eating our babies!" types say that policies are making the rich richer and the not rich poorer but can never say exactly how that is being done. It's your claim, prove it.

The workplace votes for a union. If there is a union in that workplace, not joining is just a decision to enjoy the negotiated pay and benefits, but freeload off others who pay their dues. And if workers don't like working in a union shop, find another job with better pay and benefits. Pretty straightforward. And not un-American for employees who benefit from a union to pay for those benefits.
Click to expand...

If there is a Union in the area, they are operating for the good of all, no? Very philanthropic, right? Here is something you won't get, I'm sure. If there were a need for them....people would join them. If there were a need for them and people just didn't realize it...they would join when it became evident. If there was not a need for them, people would stop joining them.

Unions did great things in America...but like Gas lamps....their time has passed.
 
JasperL said:
He also raised income taxes - many times. And payroll taxes.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Reagan NEVER Raised INCOME TAXES and your comments continue to show you have no idea what taxes you pay and what they were for. Payroll Taxes fund SS and MEDICARE and thus are use taxes as well. Not every American pays into SS and Medicare either thus if they didn't they didn't pay but if you earn income in this country you pay FIT. I just don't understand the loyalty you and others have to taxes
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
If you have other data, I'd love to see it. Really. As it is, I can only go on the evidence available.



I don't really know how to respond. There are so many straw men in that post I don't know where to start.



NOWHERE have I argued that the government should tell a business what to pay their workers.



That makes no sense. Equal outcomes are impossible and would be disastrous for the economy. I'm not a conservative - it doesn't mean I am a communist.



I don't know who you're responding to but it's not me.

I'll respond to some of that though. You're imagining some set of "liberal" positions, then assigning them to me based on nothing. I do not lump all businesses together. For one, Walmart IMO represents all that is rotten about our economy. They move into town and drive dozens of those small local businesses out. I spend a dollar in Walmart and a little stays local from the wages, some gets wired to Arkansas, a healthy chunk to shareholders, and the rest to pay wages for goods made in China, because Walmart makes that all but a condition of goods landing on their shelves. So it's a giant vacuum of money out of local communities. As a bonus, Walmart has more employees on public assistance than any other employer - so Tennessee taxpayers pick up a healthy chunk of their benefits. So I go to Walmart when someone drags me there, and do all I can to shop in local stores, those small businesses you're talking about. I know it doesn't do any good, but it's what I can do.



It helps me 'sound' foolish when you make up positions I don't hold. You somehow think I don't respect what you do (or did) and you couldn't be more wrong.

I'll put it this way. When we (our leaders, both parties, Clinton was one) decided to force U.S. manufacturers to compete with low wage, no environmental rules, air so polluted you can't see a quarter mile on clear days, a rigged currency, and sub $1 per hour wages, the country decided to close 10s of thousands of manufacturing plants, lose millions of good paying jobs, and drive down blue collar wages - that was the inevitable and presumably planned outcome.

All you do as employer is play by the rules of the game. So when an employer closes a plant in Lenoir City near me and moves it to China because it's cheaper and he can get his goods on a Walmart shelf, I have NO beef with that employer at all. When the remaining employers in that town have 500 newly unemployed workers and the market rate goes down for labor, they'd be idiots to not lower wages to the market rate. My problem is the rules just guarantee a bad result for lots of good people willing to work very hard, but who have no good jobs TO take. That's what the numbers show.

That's it. I have no beef with employers like you playing by the rules of the game set by people in rooms we don't even know exist.
Click to expand...

Every one of your posts seems to be about people either not making enough money, income equality, wealth being controlled by very few and yet not once have I seen a solution from you. If you see this as a problem then the question is what would you do about it??

There isn't a business in the world that is in business to provide you with a living. Their job is to make a profit and if they cannot compete their survival instincts by their owners is going to kick in and they are going to cut costs. You are not guaranteed and income but you are guaranteed an opportunity. Sometimes that opportunity is outside your home town and you have to take it. I moved 7 times in my life to follow the opportunities available. Some do not want to do that, that is their choice and with choice comes consequences.

Now what are your solutions??
 
Dittohead not! said:
Didn't we used to have laws against usury? Whatever happened to them?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember those too. Something about not being able to breech 29.99 APR, but I don't know how the hell these places get past them. All I know is I have a friend who's wife used to work at one of these places, and it is heartbreaking the stories she tells about people that come in there and take out a $500. advance, then every week or two bring in $575. and come back the next day and take out that same $500. repeating the cycle never paying the loan off. Some of these people are elderly that once snared, never get out. It's sad. And these places if you take a look around, are situated, and saturated in the poor districts of every city and town...These people that own these places deserve a special place in hell.

You're right about the predatory lenders and mortgages. What happened was that houses were sold to perfectly willing buyers who couldn't afford those houses using "creative loans". Lots of buyers as well as lenders made money on the deal until the bottom fell out of the market. Rates were no higher than for any other mortgages.
Click to expand...

The part that I will ding the banks on is that the had people sitting in front of them that they knew damned well couldn't afford the houses they were buying, or the 2nd, and 3rd mortgages they were taking out, and did it anyway because they thought they'd just be able to push it back on the government, and get their money. Plus the incentives for the people working within the mortgage loan business was significant in the form of commissions, and to be truthful they simply didn't care, nor did they use any common sense when talking people into these loans....That's on them. But it doesn't give anyone the right to lie about income to get in the house, and then just walk away from it when they couldn't afford it.

What should have happened is laws passed to ensure that buyers had enough skin in the game to lose if the houses were foreclosed, and to have a reasonable assurance that people weren't buying houses that they couldn't afford, that dreaded but necessary word: Government regulation. That didn't happen, and so the whole house of cards eventually fell.
Click to expand...

My contention is that we had that, but it wasn't followed. And this is where it gets partisan. There was a point when demo's were in charge that hearings were held, and regulators, as well as Repubs were raising holy hell about what was happening within the industry, and Demo's either ignored, or brushed off warnings....



This IMHO, puts demo's just as culpable as those bank, and mortgage people that pushed the people for commissions.

As far as "skin in the game" I will say this...We aren't doing this now either...Fannie and Freedie announced that they were going to open a program offering 3% down mortgages...Same thing all over again. But I will say this. 5 years ago I bought my house here in SC..I did it with NOTHING down. I have VA backing so, I didn't need to put a penny down according to the rules, but two things I did to ensure I could swing it, first I didn't buy more house than we could afford, and I immediately put the mortgage payment on auto pay through my bank tied to my wife's paycheck...So she gets paid on the 1st, and 15th, and the mortgage payment is automatically paid on the very same days...We never give the payment a second thought, and it's exactly on time for over 5 years now. Too many buy too much house, then play games with the mortgage payment.

Too many people have NO idea how to budget, or the real effect of missing payments, or paying slow...See, I think that there ought to be mandatory budgeting classes say at the Community College before you can buy a house, and then one thing I haven't seen that should be there if someone was accounting savvy, or budgeting savvy, to start up a service not to charge those with budgeting problems, but to have a place for these people starting to sink, to go and put all their bills, and income on the table, and have a place to teach them how to work through it...Right now there are places like that claim that is what they do, but many times they are paid by the creditors, and are really nothing more than 3rd party collectors.

We always say in this country that 'education is the key', yet when it comes to actually putting our money where our mouth is on that we shrug it off, and blame the person suffering...Anyway, those are my thoughts this morning.
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, Reagan NEVER Raised INCOME TAXES and your comments continue to show you have no idea what taxes you pay and what they were for. Payroll Taxes fund SS and MEDICARE and thus are use taxes as well. Not every American pays into SS and Medicare either thus if they didn't they didn't pay but if you earn income in this country you pay FIT. I just don't understand the loyalty you and others have to taxes
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. Here's one of them - in 1982. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also in California! Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

The top income tax rate was raised from 7 percent to 10 percent, the sales tax rate went from 3 percent to 5 percent, the cigarette tax was increased from 3 cents to 10 cents per pack, the alcohol tax was raised from $1.50 to $2 per gallon, the bank and corporate tax rate went up from 5.5 percent to 7 percent, and the inheritance tax rose from a range of 2 percent to 10 percent to a range of 3 percent to 15 percent.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is Reagan preferred lower taxes and lower spending, but wasn't a fiscal idiot and so raised taxes in the face of budget deficits.
 
mac said:
Living standards haven't declined. They appear to have declined because individuals today tend to take on greater debt for those shiney things and that lowers their apparent net worth.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence? In the face of stagnant wages, increased debt is how people prevented declines in living standards. Only problem is that's not sustainable.

My point is that most "the rich people are eating our babies!" types say that policies are making the rich richer and the not rich poorer but can never say exactly how that is being done. It's your claim, prove it.
Click to expand...

And I give you policies, you ask me who supported those policies, and now deny that I provided answers how. It's very strange.

If there is a Union in the area, they are operating for the good of all, no? Very philanthropic, right? Here is something you won't get, I'm sure. If there were a need for them....people would join them. If there were a need for them and people just didn't realize it...they would join when it became evident. If there was not a need for them, people would stop joining them.
Click to expand...

One way to kill unions is right to work laws which encourage freeloading and make unions almost impossible to sustain. That is the purpose of those laws and they work. In Tennessee last year, workers tried to unionize the VW plant. Our Senators and state threatened the union with retaliation if they succeeded. If you want to acknowledge the massive alignment of governments and the wealthy against unions, and still claim they're not necessary, or even harmful to jobs, etc. that's fine. But the powerful interests don't hide this hostility and proudly claim credit for the effectiveness of union busting legislation.

Unions did great things in America...but like Gas lamps....their time has passed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but their decline has followed declines in blue collar wages, benefits, job security, etc. Not surprising. One worker against Walmart loses. A union against Walmart has a better chance. Which is why Walmart will abandon a store before allowing it to unionize.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, I remember those too. Something about not being able to breech 29.99 APR, but I don't know how the hell these places get past them. All I know is I have a friend who's wife used to work at one of these places, and it is heartbreaking the stories she tells about people that come in there and take out a $500. advance, then every week or two bring in $575. and come back the next day and take out that same $500. repeating the cycle never paying the loan off. Some of these people are elderly that once snared, never get out. It's sad. And these places if you take a look around, are situated, and saturated in the poor districts of every city and town...These people that own these places deserve a special place in hell.



The part that I will ding the banks on is that the had people sitting in front of them that they knew damned well couldn't afford the houses they were buying, or the 2nd, and 3rd mortgages they were taking out, and did it anyway because they thought they'd just be able to push it back on the government, and get their money. Plus the incentives for the people working within the mortgage loan business was significant in the form of commissions, and to be truthful they simply didn't care, nor did they use any common sense when talking people into these loans....That's on them. But it doesn't give anyone the right to lie about income to get in the house, and then just walk away from it when they couldn't afford it.



My contention is that we had that, but it wasn't followed. And this is where it gets partisan. There was a point when demo's were in charge that hearings were held, and regulators, as well as Repubs were raising holy hell about what was happening within the industry, and Demo's either ignored, or brushed off warnings....



This IMHO, puts demo's just as culpable as those bank, and mortgage people that pushed the people for commissions.

As far as "skin in the game" I will say this...We aren't doing this now either...Fannie and Freedie announced that they were going to open a program offering 3% down mortgages...Same thing all over again. But I will say this. 5 years ago I bought my house here in SC..I did it with NOTHING down. I have VA backing so, I didn't need to put a penny down according to the rules, but two things I did to ensure I could swing it, first I didn't buy more house than we could afford, and I immediately put the mortgage payment on auto pay through my bank tied to my wife's paycheck...So she gets paid on the 1st, and 15th, and the mortgage payment is automatically paid on the very same days...We never give the payment a second thought, and it's exactly on time for over 5 years now. Too many buy too much house, then play games with the mortgage payment.

Too many people have NO idea how to budget, or the real effect of missing payments, or paying slow...See, I think that there ought to be mandatory budgeting classes say at the Community College before you can buy a house, and then one thing I haven't seen that should be there if someone was accounting savvy, or budgeting savvy, to start up a service not to charge those with budgeting problems, but to have a place for these people starting to sink, to go and put all their bills, and income on the table, and have a place to teach them how to work through it...Right now there are places like that claim that is what they do, but many times they are paid by the creditors, and are really nothing more than 3rd party collectors.

We always say in this country that 'education is the key', yet when it comes to actually putting our money where our mouth is on that we shrug it off, and blame the person suffering...Anyway, those are my thoughts this morning.
Click to expand...


I think you have it all right except one small issue: If it was all Democrats, how is it that the situation wasn't fixed back when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and the White House?

This is the issue with blaming the other party, regardless of which one that is or what the issue may be: There are times in recent history when the party doing the blaming had the trifecta, and did nothing.

Yes, let's blame the Democrats. Let's blame the Republicans as well while we're at it.
 
JasperL said:
Do you have any evidence? In the face of stagnant wages, increased debt is how people prevented declines in living standards. Only problem is that's not sustainable.
Click to expand...

You're mixing things up. It was you that claimed lower net worth illustrated lower living standards.

And I give you policies, you ask me who supported those policies, and now deny that I provided answers how. It's very strange.
Click to expand...

No, you made a vague reference to trade agreements and tariffs.

One way to kill unions is right to work laws which encourage freeloading and make unions almost impossible to sustain. That is the purpose of those laws and they work. In Tennessee last year, workers tried to unionize the VW plant. Our Senators and state threatened the union with retaliation if they succeeded. If you want to acknowledge the massive alignment of governments and the wealthy against unions, and still claim they're not necessary, or even harmful to jobs, etc. that's fine. But the powerful interests don't hide this hostility and proudly claim credit for the effectiveness of union busting legislation.
Click to expand...

Whether anyone is for or against Unions is irrelevant. Being forced to join a Union, or any other organization, in order to be able to work is un-American. Would you support a factory that only hired registered Catholic parishioners?

Perhaps, but their decline has followed declines in blue collar wages, benefits, job security, etc. Not surprising. One worker against Walmart loses. A union against Walmart has a better chance. Which is why Walmart will abandon a store before allowing it to unionize.
Click to expand...

Decline in wages benefits? Illustrate that please.
 
mac said:
How many sections did he veto and how many are specifically named in that reference?
Click to expand...

Romney vetoed eight provisions in the Massachusetts health reform law:

  1. An employer mandate
  2. Requirement for a report on the implementation/impact of the employer mandate
  3. Restoration of eligibility for qualified aliens to enroll in MassHealth Essential (a now-discontinued insurance program in Mass for the long-term unemployed)
  4. Restoration of adult dental benefits to MassHealth
  5. Requirement that the executive branch send a report to the legislature before changing any behavioral health services
  6. Requirement that the legislature be included in the negotiations with the federal government over the state's Medicaid expansion
  7. Changes to membership of a public health council that advises the state's commissioner of public health
  8. Changes to terms for members of the public health council

He did not veto the individual mandate and, as has already been pointed out, was a pretty enthusiastic supporter of it.
 
mac said:
You're mixing things up. It was you that claimed lower net worth illustrated lower living standards.
Click to expand...

It's not all I referenced, which you know of course.

No, you made a vague reference to trade agreements and tariffs.
Click to expand...

That is a vague reference? The end of tariffs is a massive change in economic policies we pursued in this country from roughly the founding until the late 1970s and 1980s. "Free trade" has transformed out economy - really the world economy. And it's a choice. When we made it we decided to close 10s of thousands of plants, lose millions of manufacturing jobs.

Whether anyone is for or against Unions is irrelevant. Being forced to join a Union, or any other organization, in order to be able to work is un-American. Would you support a factory that only hired registered Catholic parishioners?
Click to expand...

Work for a non union shop? That will work. If not, and you enjoy the benefits of a union, elected by your fellow workers, you shouldn't demand to freeload off their efforts. Pay the dues and quit whining.

Decline in wages benefits? Illustrate that please.
Click to expand...

Already done.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think you have it all right except one small issue: If it was all Democrats, how is it that the situation wasn't fixed back when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and the White House?

This is the issue with blaming the other party, regardless of which one that is or what the issue may be: There are times in recent history when the party doing the blaming had the trifecta, and did nothing.

Yes, let's blame the Democrats. Let's blame the Republicans as well while we're at it.
Click to expand...

I agree...The repubs took their eye off the ball, and Bush, plus too many bought into the populist idea of homeownership being directly tied to the American dream. This type of melding of the ideologies, and sacrifice of principles that would have logically fixed the situation before a total meltdown is what prompts conservatives like me to say that Bush was, in respects to his social agenda, was a progressive. That and the whole "we must suspend free market principles to save the free market" Bull....

I don't claim to have the answers, nor am I smart enough, or clairvoyant to know what is in the minds and hearts of seemingly smart men in the position to make the change. But, I do know that Keynesian tactics with this mess we are slowly emerging from was made to last longer with slower rates of recovery using that system, as it has been shown over and over in history...Why we keep making the same damned mistake with this crap is beyond me...

So, I guess now, with this statement, I'll have to listen to the same talking point crap I can get on MSNBC regurgitated back at me with the precision of a dvr recording of the actual show, as if they are saying something new...Like I've said to you many times in our 10 years of knowing each other on these boards, I am a simple guy, but I do know when they are holding out a bowl of steaming ****, and telling me it is chocolate ice cream....;)
 
j-mac said:
I agree...The repubs took their eye off the ball, and Bush, plus too many bought into the populist idea of homeownership being directly tied to the American dream. This type of melding of the ideologies, and sacrifice of principles that would have logically fixed the situation before a total meltdown is what prompts conservatives like me to say that Bush was, in respects to his social agenda, was a progressive. That and the whole "we must suspend free market principles to save the free market" Bull....

I don't claim to have the answers, nor am I smart enough, or clairvoyant to know what is in the minds and hearts of seemingly smart men in the position to make the change. But, I do know that Keynesian tactics with this mess we are slowly emerging from was made to last longer with slower rates of recovery using that system, as it has been shown over and over in history...Why we keep making the same damned mistake with this crap is beyond me...

So, I guess now, with this statement, I'll have to listen to the same talking point crap I can get on MSNBC regurgitated back at me with the precision of a dvr recording of the actual show, as if they are saying something new...Like I've said to you many times in our 10 years of knowing each other on these boards, I am a simple guy, but I do know when they are holding out a bowl of steaming ****, and telling me it is chocolate ice cream....;)
Click to expand...

Don't sell yourself short, jmac. You're at least as smart as the average person in Congress.

and a lot more practical.
 
j-mac said:
I agree...The repubs took their eye off the ball, and Bush, plus too many bought into the populist idea of homeownership being directly tied to the American dream. This type of melding of the ideologies, and sacrifice of principles that would have logically fixed the situation before a total meltdown is what prompts conservatives like me to say that Bush was, in respects to his social agenda, was a progressive. That and the whole "we must suspend free market principles to save the free market" Bull....

I don't claim to have the answers, nor am I smart enough, or clairvoyant to know what is in the minds and hearts of seemingly smart men in the position to make the change. But, I do know that Keynesian tactics with this mess we are slowly emerging from was made to last longer with slower rates of recovery using that system, as it has been shown over and over in history...Why we keep making the same damned mistake with this crap is beyond me...

So, I guess now, with this statement, I'll have to listen to the same talking point crap I can get on MSNBC regurgitated back at me with the precision of a dvr recording of the actual show, as if they are saying something new...Like I've said to you many times in our 10 years of knowing each other on these boards, I am a simple guy, but I do know when they are holding out a bowl of steaming ****, and telling me it is chocolate ice cream....;)
Click to expand...


pssst....I will tell you a secret if you promise not to tell anybody
it comes down to why people choose to spend or not spend their discretionary money (only the Austrians can tell you the answer)
 
Declan said:
pssst....I will tell you a secret if you promise not to tell anybody
it comes down to why people choose to spend or not spend their discretionary money (only the Austrians can tell you the answer)
Click to expand...

Go on.....
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, Reagan NEVER Raised INCOME TAXES and your comments continue to show you have no idea what taxes you pay and what they were for.
Click to expand...
I'd have to double check, but I think when the tax rates were revised, many did see an average increase in tax rates under Reagan. It was small, but remember, the tax code changes from several tax brackets, and was simplified to three under Reagan. There were both winners and losers. A quick look at an unfinished excel sheet I have shows tax payers paying more starting for the 1987 tax year. Not by much at all, but factually yes.

Conservative said:
Payroll Taxes fund SS and MEDICARE and thus are use taxes as well.
Click to expand...
These did increase, and we need them to be increased once again. With longevity and medical costs, these rates are not high enough today.

Conservative said:
Not every American pays into SS and Medicare either thus if they didn't they didn't pay but if you earn income in this country you pay FIT.
Click to expand...
Those who don't pay into it are collecting what for income? Only capital gains and dividends? They will likely never need to collect SS and if they can, it will be the minimal levels as it is based on what you pay in.

Conservative said:
I just don't understand the loyalty you and others have to taxes
Click to expand...
That is the $64,000,000 question!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom