• 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!

2012 - Election Lying

In today's election, politicians have more to gain than lose from lying

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
obvious Child said:
Furthermore, Switzerland is Marxist by your definition. And states with strong welfare and collective programs such as those in East Europe which have flat taxes aren't Marxist by your definition. More idiocy from your unilateral redefining of words.
Click to expand...
When I visited Switzerland I was impressed by the physical beauty of the place.
If it is as you say then yes, they are under the sway of Marxist European socialism.
I believe you are handicapped by your binary thinking.
 
obvious Child said:
Look, merely because I call you out for changing words does not mean I back Marxism. I agree with you it's fantasy land bordering on criminally insane. But that does not mean you have the right definitions. And Marx would eliminate the wealth creators, wealth and the merchant class. He did not demonize them as the end goal: He would eliminate them. That alone would create lots of problems.
Click to expand...
Do you (foolishly) believe that Radical Barrack can get there in one term? You do not recognize that your thinking is very linear and, well, binary. If you intend to be of any worth to anyone you will have to change that.

Wrong. One wrecks capital accumulation in a Marxist view by eliminating those who accumulate capital.
Click to expand...

Silly boy. You are a boy aren't you? Have you read any of Radical Karl's works? I admit they are boring and very pedestrian. But one must know the enemy. So have you read the Communist Manifesto? Here is a link. It is free. I know you like free.
 
obvious Child said:
Wrong. One wrecks capital accumulation in a Marxist view by eliminating those who accumulate capital.
Click to expand...
I believe this misunderstanding comes from an inability to sense the difference between beginnings and endings. Radical Karl clearly wrote in his Communist Manifesto about using a steeply progressive income tax. Why, in your opinion, would he write that if his intention was to murder (or otherwise get rid of) all of the rich?

How you missed this is really appalling. I don't see how you can reasonable think you can talk about Marxism after failing to understand that basic part of Marxism.
Click to expand...
I believe you should read beyond the table of contents. Or am I mistaken? Have you read and digested all fifty volumes of Marxist fairy tales? I see absolutely no evidence of any hard work on your part. But you could write Obama bumper stickers.

[/B]And we used to tax wealth far worse then before. Didn't seem to stop capital accumulation. We used to have a 91% top tax rate. And the rich still got rich. Imagine that.
Click to expand...
There are many people who have the appearance of wisdom without any of the actual effort and time that it requires to get it.
Can you describe the effective tax rate when the marginal rate was 91%?

Imagine that. Some people are so partisan they cannot speak truthfully.
 
obvious Child said:
Granted, I realize your understanding of business is sorely lacking. TARP effectively put the risk of stupid bank decisions on taxpayers while I-Bankers made off with the bailout money as well as got to keep making stupid decisions. Recent bonuses are back to what we saw in 2006 and banks are rolling in the money. The risks they are taking are the same ones before the crisis, only now they have a certified lifeline for bailouts. Obama has privatized the wealth from risky decisions and the rest of us pay for it when it goes bad. Learn about the financial crisis for once. Seriously. Lazy. Financial firms make big risks, make big profit and when it fails we pay to cover their costs. Rather than letting them take their losses, we bail them out.
Click to expand...
Have you evaluated who got help and who didn't? Have you evaluated who bundled money for the Democratic party and for the Obama campaign.

Have you started any businesses? I have.
 
I wrote, "3. Do you believe that the one term Marxist is taking money from the Marxist-formulated "Middle Class" to give to the rich and to corporations? By what mechanism does he do this? How is the money transferred from one to the other?"

obvious Child said:
Easy. The low interest rates that we've seen are effectively transferring huge amounts of money from the Middle Class to the Elites. The Elites earn margins far in excess of what they would during normal interest rate periods while the Middle Class earns far less otherwise. This is a subsidy from Grandma to Wall Street.
Explain please. How are low interest rates transferring money to the elites. Just between you and me, I do not think you have a clue. This is evidence.
If it used to cost me a dollar to borrow and use ten dollars how do the rich benefit if it now cost me two cents?

Shall we just admit that you really do not know very much and move on?
Click to expand...
 
johnny_rebson said:
Well you libs keep saying Romney is a rich snob who doesn't care about the poor.
Click to expand...

Seriously, this displays your childlike behavior.. They keep saying Romney is rich (OMG), we should retaliate by calling Obama a commie!!!
Actually not even retaliation...i saw this language well before the election train came rolling by: it is completely fictitious.
 
obvious Child said:
I'm so done with this.

You change definitions as you see fit, you say I'm wrong because of my view point and then utterly fail to explain why. You operate from a position of massive government conspiracy. You have no understanding of Marxism in the slightest. Everything that goes contrary to your giant conspiracy is just a cover for the real deal. You have no concept of what actually happened in the GM bankruptcy. I'm talking to someone who frankly makes up whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

And your blatant picking and choosing shows me you got nothing. You flat up pretend my question about what ACTUAL Marxist policy Obama has enacted doesn't exist.

I make it a habit to refrain from discussing the truly insane. I'm out.
Click to expand...

For reference.
 
I wrote, "5. This is just silly. Show me the corporate tax rate reductions that the one term Marxist has pushed for and signed into law."

obvious Child said:
It's called Google you lazy hack:

Economic Stimulus Acts impact on Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation | Section179.Org
2010 HIRE Act: Tax Breaks for Small Business

Effective corporate rates drop.
Click to expand...

I read your first link. After reading it I did not bother with the second.
I do hope you are taking your blood pressure medicine. You are always so angry. Funny. But angry at the same time.

I concede that the one term Marxist signed a law that has some very specific and tiny tax credits. They are laughable. And so, in your own angry way is your behavior.

I meant something that would make an actual difference. I offer, as an example reducing the corporate tax rate to at least three full percentage points below the lowest current tax rates in the group of twenty. That would make a difference. Nice try though. I know it is hard.
 
obvious Child said:
No, it's not. The Unions got a set block of stock. Their trust income is dependent upon capital gains, dividends and dues. Capital gains reduces the corpus principal. Dividends are the whim of the board. And dues are set. No dividends forces a sale of corpus principal. Which makes it even harder to meet future obligations. Unions got the shaft here if you have any concept of funding, which it doesn't appear you do.

Because you say so. Seriously, you operate under a massive conspiracy and have no regards for facts.

You think that green firms who either are losing money or barely breaking even can afford huge contributions.
You think that unions who have an ever decreasing corpus principal to pay for increasing costs really got their healthcare plans saved even after the union had its fate set by a judge in a way that removed many of their benefits really got the best deal here. Let's ignore that established bankruptcy laws allow for the voiding of union-management deals and that such laws were followed. But you think it really didn't happen.

It's all a giant conspiracy.

This is pathetic. Even for you.

Jesus Christ. Of COURSE Marx wrote about class! OMG. This is ridiculous. If you are trying to get me to abandon this by putting out incredibly stupid argument after argument it's working. Marx wrote about Class as an evil. And wanted to get rid of it. Obama does not. Furthermore, pushing welfare actually INCREASES stratification. The exact opposite of what Marx wrote.

You want Obama to be a Marxist, that is your basis of your belief and you rewrite Marxism to fit that.

You have no understanding of events. Actually the bond holders agreed to it before hand because at the time, it looked like they'd get nothing. They did not want equity stock in a future corporation because they did not think there would BE a future corporation. You do not understand business nor what actually happened. Bond Holders looked at a prospective share in a future company that may not actually exist or a small payout and took the payout. This happened before the union deal was made. Which by the way null and voided a great many of their agreements. Furthermore, legacy obligations are required to be paid and in the event of a business failure are transferred over to the government. Effectively, the deal was less socialist because the company provided the financing for it rather than taxpayers. Bond Holders had the option for future rights in the company. They choose not to.
Click to expand...
The rest of this is all piffle. I especially love your explanation that "the deal was less socialist..." Yeah. That is rich. Socialism is socialism, right? More or less. I admit that your assessment did make me laugh.
 
Your Star said:
The public is stupid, which is really sad since we live in the information age. So yes lying can be rather helpful.
Click to expand...

Don't bitch, it's you lefties that run education system in this country. And don't deny it, it's common knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom