Socialist America Sinking [Mobile/Archive]

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 12:27 PM

Pat Buchanan farking nails it here..

Socialist America Sinking (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104226)
Posted: July 16, 2009
8:41 pm Eastern

After half a century of fighting encroachments upon freedom in America, journalist Garet Garrett published "The People's Pottage." A year later, in 1954, he died. "The People's Pottage" opens thus:

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Garrett wrote of a revolution within the form. While outwardly America appeared the same, a revolution within had taken place that was now irreversible. One need only glance at where we were before the New Deal, where we are and where we are headed to see how far we are off the course the Founding Fathers set for our republic.

Taxes drove the American Revolution, for we were a taxaphobic, liberty-loving people. That government is best that governs least is an Americanism. When "Silent Cal" Coolidge went home in 1929, the U.S. government was spending 3 percent of gross domestic product.

And today? Obama's first budget will consume 28 percent of the entire GDP; state and local governments another 15 percent. While there is some overlap, in 2009, government will consume 40 percent of GDP, approaching the peak of World War II.

The deficit for 2009 is $1.8 trillion, 13 percent of the whole economy. Obama is pushing a cap-and-trade bill to cut carbon emissions that will impose huge costs on energy production, spike consumer prices and drive production offshore to China, which is opting out of Kyoto II. The Chinese are not fools.

Obama plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts and take the income tax rate to near 40 percent. Combined state and local income tax rates can run to 10 percent. For the self-employed, payroll taxes add up to 15.2 percent on the first $106,800 for all wages of all workers. Medicare takes 2.9 percent of all wages above that. Then there are the state sales taxes that can run to 8 percent, property taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes and "sin taxes" on booze, cigarettes and, soon, hot dogs and soft drinks.

Comes now national health insurance from Nancy Pelosi's House. A surtax that runs to 5.4 percent of all earnings of the top 1 percent of Americans, who already pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, has been sent to the Senate. Included also is an 8 percent tax on the entire payroll of small businesses that fail to provide health insurance for employees.

Other ideas on the table include taxing the health benefits that businesses provide their employees.

The D.C.-based Tax Foundation says New Yorkers could face a combined income tax rate of near 60 percent.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called George III a tyrant for having "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

What did George III do with his Stamp Act, Townshend Acts or tea tax to compare with what is being done to this generation of Americans by their own government?

While the hardest-working and most productive are bled, a third of all wage-earners pay no U.S. income tax, and Obama plans to free almost half of all wage-earners of all income taxes. Yet, tens of millions get Medicaid, rent supplements, free education, food stamps, welfare and an annual check from Uncle Sam called an Earned Income Tax Credit, though they never paid a nickel in income taxes.

Oh, yes. Obama also promises everybody a college education.

Coming to America to feast on this cornucopia of freebies is the world. One million to 2 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrive every year. They come with fewer skills and less education than Americans, and consume more tax dollars than they contribute by three to one.

Wise Latina women have more babies north of the border than they do in Mexico and twice as many here as American women.

As almost all immigrants are now Third World people of color, they qualify for ethnic preferences in hiring and promotions and admissions to college over the children of Americans.

All of this would have astounded and appalled the Founding Fathers, who after all, created America – as they declared loud and clear in the Constitution – "for ourselves and our posterity."

China saves, invests and grows at 8 percent. America, awash in debt, has a shrinking economy, a huge trade deficit, a gutted industrial base, an unemployment rate surging toward 10 percent and a money supply that's swollen to double its size in a year. The 20th century may have been the American Century. The 21st shows another pattern.

"The United States is declining as a nation and a world power with mostly sighs and shrugs to mark this seismic event," writes Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine. "Astonishingly, some people do not appear to realize that the situation is all that serious."

Even the establishment is starting to get the message.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 12:31 PM

The little angry face is just so cute.

I do so love listening to people bitch because they realize shit actually has to be paid for.

docvinh

07-17-2009, 12:32 PM

Pat Buchanan farking nails it here..

Socialist America Sinking (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104226)
Posted: July 16, 2009
8:41 pm Eastern

Eh, fuck Pat Buchanan and his hate for immigrants. My parents were immigrants and work hard for what they have. America was pretty much founded by immigrants so I don't know what the fuck he's complaining about. I guess I'm sorry the white man is getting screwed or something.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 12:35 PM

The subtle racism in this whole thing just lends itself to white conservative propaganda.

"Wise latina" and "Third World people of color" are just conservative buzzwords to get the base up and energized.

The Founding Fathers created a country for rich white landowning males. That's not what this country is now. Get over it.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 12:36 PM

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 01:38 PM

lol @ reactions

I agree ole Pat is a bit of a xenophobe..but most of his points are good. I personally have no problem with 100% legal immigration with no limits..but we need to abolish the welfare state first. ;)

fullmetalfan720

07-17-2009, 01:42 PM

The little angry face is just so cute.

I do so love listening to people bitch because they realize shit actually has to be paid for.
Has to be paid for? You really think all of your tax dollars go to anything useful?

Ruined

07-17-2009, 01:43 PM

The Founding Fathers created a country for rich white landowning males. That's not what this country is now. Get over it.

So if the "rich white landowning males" decide to up and move their homes & businesses out of the country due to overtaxation, who exactly is going to be paying all the taxes? Rich people are footing most of the tax bill now. If they leave, so will the government's ability to provide any of the socialist-esque programs. I would appreciate that class if I were you instead of looking down upon it :)

Liquid 2

07-17-2009, 01:46 PM

Good article.

And I like how y'all are getting pissy because he trash talked some immigrants. Sure, not really necessary, but also not an excuse to ignore the rest of his points.

docvinh

07-17-2009, 01:53 PM

Good article.

And I like how y'all are getting pissy because he trash talked some immigrants. Sure, not really necessary, but also not an excuse to ignore the rest of his points.

Insulting immigrants is not a good way to get your point across. Why would I want to listen to someone who thinks like that?

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 01:54 PM

depascal22

07-17-2009, 01:56 PM

So if the "rich white landowning males" decide to up and move their homes & businesses out of the country due to overtaxation, who exactly is going to be paying all the taxes? Rich people are footing most of the tax bill now. If they leave, so will the government's ability to provide any of the socialist-esque programs. I would appreciate that class if I were you instead of looking down upon it :)

Then fucking leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and pay taxes. Either start the revolution or get out.

The last thing I'm gonna do is feel sorry or appreciate rich people. Why don't you guys appreciate the struggle of a single mother with three kids? To you, they're just welfare babies sucking on the tit of America. Where's the appreciation or compassion for them? Appreciate the rich? Fuck that.

Liquid -- Good article? He basically said this a white nation and that immigrants are ruining this nation. When I was growing up, I was taught that immigrants were the lifeblood of this nation. I guess that only applies to German, English, Scandanavian, and other white European immigrants. The rest of the "Third World people of color" can go fuck themselves.

Ruined

07-17-2009, 01:59 PM

Then fucking leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and pay taxes. Either start the revolution or get out.

The last thing I'm gonna do is feel sorry or appreciate rich people. Why don't you guys appreciate the struggle of a single mother with three kids? To you, they're just welfare babies sucking on the tit of America. Where's the appreciation or compassion for them? Appreciate the rich? Fuck that.

I can be compassionate, but I can also question why the mother had three kids if she could not financially support them.

Like it or not, the rich finance the bulk of the programs for the poor. Without the rich, the poor will lose their services. There is no need to feel sorry for the rich, but as a class they should be appreciated for the tax & charity money they contribute - which in turn trickles down into programs & charities for the poor.

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 02:02 PM

depascal, you don't need to appreciate the rich. Just stop pissing on them every chance you get..and stop telling your favorite politician to assrape them with more taxes whenever possible. Those evil rich bastards are the ones employing 100 million Americans after all. They are doing far more good with their wealth than the most bleeding heart politician could hope to achieve in 10 lifetimes.

docvinh

07-17-2009, 02:03 PM

Has to be paid for? You really think all of your tax dollars go to anything useful?

I dunno, I went to a public school and got a decent education, I mean, it definitely wasn't the best, but probably better then me just trying to teach myself the entire time. When I went to college, I had Pell grants which allowed me to attend college, and when I went to grad school for my masters, I had subsidized loans. I'm now entering a PhD program, so I have to say that the government has helped me out quite a bit actually, hopefully I can be "useful" in the future.:)

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 02:08 PM

I dunno, I went to a public school and got a decent education, I mean, it definitely wasn't the best, but probably better then me just trying to teach myself the entire time. When I went to college, I had Pell grants which allowed me to attend college, and when I went to grad school for my masters, I had subsidized loans. I'm now entering a PhD program, so I have to say that the government has helped me out quite a bit actually, hopefully I can be "useful" in the future.:)

So what have taxpayers bought? What's your major?

depascal22

07-17-2009, 02:10 PM

docvinh

07-17-2009, 02:10 PM

So what have taxpayers bought? What's your major?

Educational Psychology. Hopefully I can help develop better standardized tests and procedures. Think you got your money's worth?:)

depascal22

07-17-2009, 02:14 PM

Educational Psychology. Hopefully I can help develop better standardized tests and procedures. Think you got your money's worth?:)

Maybe you'll get a great job and bitch about how the government is taking all your money now.

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 02:17 PM

You do realize you're defending people that do everything they can to spend money overseas right?pascal, people only take money overseas because they have an incentive to do so. They don't do it because hate America. The fact is we live in in a competitive world and companies will naturally go where the costs are lowest.. Part of that equation is labor costs, and it will be always hard for America to compete with cheap labor from overseas..but another part is the tax and regulatory system in America.. This is the only thing we do have control over...the cost of doing business here. Abolishing the corporate and capital gains taxes (which are some of the highest in the developed world BTW) would be a HUGE step in the right direction in preventing capital from flowing overseas. It would make it much more attractive for companies to keep jobs on shore..and even for foreign companies to set up shop here rather than export to us...but of course cutting those rates would disproportionately benefit the "rich" (who create all the frakkin jobs you want by the way), so we can't have that.

Ruined

07-17-2009, 02:19 PM

You do realize you're defending people that do everything they can to spend money overseas right? Swiss bank accounts, off shore banks, Mercedes Benz, shopping trips in London, Paris, and Milan, art from Europe, etc. That and all the companies they own, run, or influence are actively shipping jobs OUT of the country.

That and they actually pay people just to get out of as much taxes as possible. You really want to defend these people and say this the shining example of America at it's finest.

How much money do you think they would contribute if they couldn't write it off anymore? Also, how much of that money actually goes to people that need it and not a shell corporation run by Cousin Vinny?

I'm not saying that we can't have the rich. We need the rich. I'm just saying they could be doing more to ensure that America in the future will be prosperous instead of just their family. I'm saying that rich white landowner shoudn't be the only criteria for becoming powerful in this country. It's not now but I'm sure there are plenty of Pat Roberstons out there itching for a return of white rule.

Regardless of how you want to argue how the rich don't pay taxes, this is reality from the federal government (calendar year 2001):
http://www.reflectonreality.com/tax.jpg

Without the rich, the programs for the poor would crumble and cease to exist - or at best they would be severly castrated. And, the huge amount of money to finance that alone should be enough of a mandatory contribution of their wealth. Many rich people also donate to charities, but not all do. That is where freedom steps in, freedom to spend the money you earned as you wish (to a point). That is why I don't think even more taxes and charges should be lumped upon them - they are clearly already doing more than their fair share and giving a massive percentage of the money they earn to the gov't.

speedracer

07-17-2009, 02:27 PM

Hey Ruined, what percentage of the total income did that top 5, 10, and 50% earn?

And raise your hand if you think those top 10% aren't cheating on their taxes. Anyone that stupid?

Socialist America is sinking. A socialist America that just had one of the most aggressively pro-market governments anywhere on the planet ever for almost a decade is going downhill because of socialist America. I can't even imagine how you guys can say it with a straight face.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 02:30 PM

We could abolish those taxes but then there will be another excuse why this country can't compete. They'll say that payroll, Social Security, and Medicare taxes are too much and they'll just continue to use the Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans.

The problem with letting corporations just do whatever is the cheapest is that it's almost always harmful to the country and the environment.

Hey, it's really cheap to just dump this toxic waste in the Chesapeake Bay. Did you guys want to get crab to eat? Well, that's too bad. Big business, bitches!

You guys seem to forget that many of these anti-big business laws are relatively modern. There was a time when big business and rich people could do whatever the hell they wanted and they did.

Lost your arm working for me? Too bad. You're fired. Good luck finding another job stumpy.

Your black friend is a really good welder? Fuck him. I only hire whites here.

Can't afford to pay your rent? Let me take one of your kids to work in the mill until he's 16.

You want a day off? You're fired.

Don't like working from sunup to sundown? You're fired.

You're too old to work anymore? You're fired and you've got zero pension or benefits to tide you over.

This is how big business operates with zero regulation. Business is all about the allmighty dollar and the rest of us can go fuck ourselves.

But we should all appreciate them and get on our knees to suck capitalism's cock because it provides us so many jobs.

speedracer

07-17-2009, 02:33 PM

pascal, people only take money overseas because they have an incentive to do so. They don't do it because hate America.
No. They do it because America doesn't enter into the equation at all. Capital has zero allegiance to America. Don't pretend it does. They do it because they don't give a damn how well America does. When we decline, they'll just leave. We're hosts and they're ... what would you call them?
but another part is the tax and regulatory system in America.. This is the only thing we do have control over...the cost of doing business here.
So to defeat the race to the bottom, we should be the bottom. I got that right?
Abolishing the corporate and capital gains taxes (which are some of the highest in the developed world BTW) would be a HUGE step in the right direction in preventing capital from flowing overseas.
How's Ireland doing now?

Wanna see something fantastic? The Economist is suggest that Ireland raise taxes to save itself from its crash! You know, the crash that can't happen because their taxes are virtually nothing.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13331143&CFID=69172060&CFTOKEN=49438350

Low taxes will save us all!
http://media.economist.com/images/20090321/CEU155.gif

But at least it will save jobs right?
Unemployment has jumped from 5% to 10.4%, a faster rise even than in America.
lol. Earth to free marketeers. You're going to give yourselves strokes working so hard to close your eyes.
A leading Irish economist has called on Dublin to threaten withdrawal from the euro unless Europe's big powers do more to rescue Ireland's economy.
Save us socialists!
It would make it much more attractive for companies to keep jobs on shore..and even for foreign companies to set up shop here rather than export to us...but of course cutting those rates would disproportionately benefit the "rich" (who create all the frakkin jobs you want by the way), so we can't have that.
Cause no one would replace the current batch at the top. No sireee.

That's why there is no capital left in Europe. None at all. Right?

Msut77

07-17-2009, 02:39 PM

but most of his points are good.

Not really. That would be you know the point.

FM:
Has to be paid for?

I didn't stutter.

You really think all of your tax dollars go to anything useful?

A lot of my tax dollars do. The problem is that people do not want to pay for anything and there are entire movements dedicated to whining about it.

The peasant mentality in action.

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 02:42 PM

speed, the whole world is in a race to the bottom of the socialist abyss now.. I think all we can do to buy time is to be slightly less anti-business than we are now. You need to step back and look at the big picture. The corporate sector is the productive sector. The government sector is not...It is a leech, and as the article points out, it is currently covering 40% of America's body and growing fast. Most Americans loathe the profit-seeking businessman. What about the government sector? Do people hate the leech? No...They demand it be fed larger and larger amounts of blood every year and have no problem with it's seemingly endless parasitic growth.. All of this hate for free markets, entrepreneurs, and the good old fashioned profit-motive..and the demand for greater sacrifices every year in the name of the "public welfare" is very bad news. People around the world are completely indifferent to the smothering effect government is having on the few industries still struggling to breathe. We are strangling the goose that laid the golden egg and nobody seems to care.

Hey, it's really cheap to just dump this toxic waste in the Chesapeake Bay. Did you guys want to get crab to eat? Well, that's too bad. Big business, bitches!
Lost your arm working for me? Too bad. You're fired. Good luck finding another job stumpy.
Your black friend is a really good welder? Fuck him. I only hire whites here.
Can't afford to pay your rent? Let me take one of your kids to work in the mill until he's 16.
You want a day off? You're fired.
Don't like working from sunup to sundown? You're fired.
You're too old to work anymore? You're fired and you've got zero pension or benefits to tide you over.lololol, you're catching on. There is hope for you yet pascal.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 02:46 PM

We are strangling the goose that laid the golden egg and nobody seems to care.

That golden egg is only attainable by a handful of Americans. The rest of us will work our lives to build up corporate America and get a pittance in return.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 02:49 PM

It is hilarious to see a bunch of IT guys (when they work at all) and assorted wage slaves saying a slight increase in the top marginal tax rates are the first steps to the gulag.

None of the randroids who post here are captains of industry to say the least.

speedracer

07-17-2009, 02:54 PM

The corporate sector is the productive sector.
You mean the one scouring the earth to find the government most willing to scorch its earth, screw its people, and destroy its culture? They do business with the nastiest people in the world. The most "profitable" places are the most anti-freedom, oppressive shitholes on Earth. Niger. China. On and on.

But is that a variable in the equation? Tell me, is it?

The government sector is not...It is a leech, and as the article points out, it is currently covering 40% of America's body and growing fast.
Right, but it's disproportionately going to defense. It's a red herring argument.

Most Americans loathe the profit-seeking businessman..the man who seeks reward through production. At best, they are indifferent to him. What about the government sector? Do people hate the leech? No...They demand it be fed larger and larger amounts of blood every year and have no problem with it's parasitic growth.. All of this hate for free markets, entrepreneurs, and the good old fashioned profit-motiveis very bad news. We are strangling the goose that laid the golden egg and nobody seems to care.
Then why haven't they all left yet? I mean, it's awful right? Why are they still here? Why haven't they relocated to Burma yet?

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 02:58 PM

Give it time speed.. With federal + state taxes combined (not including sales or property taxes), the top marginal rate in New York will be 60% once the new "surtax" on the top 1% is made law. Combine that with the 8% "fee" to be imposed on all employers that don't insure all of their employees and the results should be fairly predictable. The 2010s are going to be an interesting decade my man. I suggest you pay down debt, learn to grow your own food, and buckle your seatbelt. We are reaching the climax of Ms. Rand's novel. ;)

depascal22

07-17-2009, 03:00 PM

We should all be growing our own food anyway. It's that good ole American independence that you conservatives are always talking about.

speedracer

07-17-2009, 03:00 PM

Give it time speed.. The top marginal rate in New York will be 60% once the new "surtax" on the top 1% is made law. Combine that with the new 8% "fee" on all employers that don't pay for health insurance are going to be forced to pay and the results should be fairly predictable. The 2010s are going to be an interesting decade. I suggest you pay down debt, learn to grow your own food, and buckle your seatbelt. We are reaching the climax of Ms. Rand's novel. ;)
I keep waiting for you guys to get the fuck out. You never do. I wonder why that is. I think it's because ultimately you just want everyone else to worship at the alter of money and we just aren't going to. When we don't you just whine, but you aren't going anywhere because no matter the tax rate, this is the best place in the world to live by orders of magnitude.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 03:01 PM

So when you going Galt cap?

Can't be soon enough.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 03:02 PM

I keep waiting for you guys to get the fuck out. You never do. I wonder why that is. I think it's because ultimately you just want everyone else to worship at the alter of money and we just aren't going to.

It's because they realize most of the world has higher tax rates or lower paying jobs.

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 03:05 PM

It's because they realize most of the world has higher tax rates or lower paying jobs.

Yes indeed..but that is changing mighty fast. :)

And speed, nobody wants you to worship at the altar of money. I just want you to realize where you are headed before the train goes off the cliff. With any hope we can hit the brakes in time.

and mushroomboy..sorry *cough* msut...still not contributing any substantive comments...to any thread...anywhere.. I see nothing has changed, lol.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 03:07 PM

I never understood the people enthralled by the works of Ayn Rand.

She was a horrid person, a poor writer and her ideal "real man" was a child murderer.

speedracer

07-17-2009, 03:11 PM

It's because they realize most of the world has higher tax rates or lower paying jobs.
But how can that be?!?! Why, they've already gone off the cliff 83 times then!
I just want you to realize where you are headed before the train goes off the cliff. With any hope we can hit the brakes in time.
I'm old enough to have heard this every single time we stop growing at better than 2%. Your shit is weak. You got your way in Ireland and they're a fucking smoldering crater in the ground. I'm sure there's still some sad souls in Timor that haven't heard the gospel of Capitalism. Ya'll should move on from this socialist hellhole and go forth and multiply somewhere else.
I never understood the people enthralled by the works of Ayn Rand.

She was a horrid person, a poor writer and her ideal "real man" was a child murderer.
A friend of mine described her as a perfect trap for the modern idiot to feel a part of something bigger than themselves.

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 03:20 PM

speed, ironically the only country even remotely headed "my way" today is China.. They are liberalizing trade and removing barriers to business, though they still have a long way to go. I have no idea what you are talking about in Ireland. Who the hell cares about Ireland? I googled them and they have the same sh!t we have here and every European country..a progressive tax rate with a top rate of 41%, a 22% capital gains tax, 12% corporate tax, fiat money system, government welfare, the government actually RAISING taxes in the middle of a recession to fund programs, yadda yadda yadda. It's the status quo crap we have in America and everywhere else and they are in the same slump as everyone else..big surprise. Your methods aren't working too hot are they my friend? Got any bright ideas to get us out of this slump? My prescription is to do the opposite of what we've been doing, which means less government interference but since you seem to disagree with literally everything I say, I'm assuming your solution is (lol) more government intervention? A little more poison to cure the disease eh?
rofflebot.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 03:23 PM

So you would rather live in an oppressive communist country that is pro-business? I guess anything for a buck, huh? Besides, we all know communism is so much better than socialism.

willardhaven

07-17-2009, 03:31 PM

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 03:31 PM

I said they have a long way to go. ;) Oppressive? Politically, yes... Economically, no...they are actually more free than America in many ways today. That is why the living standards of the average citizen are rising so rapidly...and it's why they are building a new city the size of Philadelphia each month with record numbers of people entering the workforce, while our real estate market is utter shit, and we have an employment rate going in the opposite direction.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 03:34 PM

Anyone else notice that cap uses "free" in a different way than a normal person might?

The freedom to pollute, the freedom to adulterate and poison food, the freedom to drive a child laborer away who was injured with no compensation...

This is the freedom cap wants for all of us ladies and gentlmen.

Capitalizt

07-17-2009, 03:38 PM

No sir. The freedom to be left alone..the freedom from theft and violence are the only freedoms I'm after, and they are the only freedoms any human being is entitled to.

Pollution, poison, slavery..I would consider all of those violations of the two universal laws of any libertarian society. 1. Respect people. 2. Respect their property rights.

Msut77

07-17-2009, 03:44 PM

No sir.

That is absolutely what you were saying, that is the reality. Even though you would rather ignore facts or are far too programmed to recognize them.

The freedom to be left alone..

You have the freedom now to move to say Somalia.

Take advantage of it.

fullmetalfan720

07-17-2009, 03:56 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-17-2009, 03:58 PM

A lot of my tax dollars do. The problem is that people do not want to pay for anything and there are entire movements dedicated to whining about it.

The peasant mentality in action.
Actually all your federal tax dollars do is pay of interest on the national debt to the Federal Reserve, China, and other holders of government debt.

depascal22

07-17-2009, 07:28 PM

willardhaven

07-17-2009, 07:40 PM

Business never gives a damn about the common man or the environment but we're supposed to bend over backwards to make this a better place for big business? Please. I'll grow my own food and switch over to solar and wind power as soon as I buy a house. Real independence is what made this nation great not sucking on businesses tit so we can make more money.

Word, notice how they don't teach basic agriculture and/or electronics (for utilizing natural energy) in grade school. We have been programmed for years to be worker bees and consumers. Real capitalism would be setting up a system that supports homegrown business and doesn't suffocate it like the current setup. Universal health care is the government saying "look, we are complete pawns of multinational corporations, at least let our people go to the doctor."

speedracer

07-17-2009, 09:29 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about in Ireland. Who the hell cares about Ireland?
Between 1998 and 2003 the corporate tax rate was reduced in stages from 32% to the current rate of 12.5%... [Personal income taxes] range from a maximum top rate of 41%, to a maximum bottom rate of 20%. In reality, however, a generous tax credits system ensures that the lower rates of taxation are normally 4% to 12%. The top rate of tax never exceeds 35% in practice.
Is that not what you wanted? Did they not forward your agenda?

mykevermin

07-17-2009, 09:31 PM

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2009/07/socialism20chart1.png

Socialist.

As.

Fuck.

XxFuRy2Xx

07-17-2009, 11:32 PM

I saw the author of this book (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Inc-World-Became-Corporation/dp/1400066891/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247884036&sr=8-1) go on the Colbert Report, and it seemed like an interesting read. Maybe capitalizt should check it out.

Personally, I'm no fool, I know that we need corporations to keep this massive economy going. But we also don't need corporations who will screw over everyone else to make a quick buck. There has to be a balance. I think that a lot of these business people need to take more ethics classes while in college or something, they just need to realize that when they make their gobs of money that they do it in a moral way.

After reading that Rolling Stones article about Goldman Sachs, my mind has completely changed about corporations and what some of them pull.

elprincipe

07-18-2009, 01:54 AM

A socialist America that just had one of the most aggressively pro-market governments anywhere on the planet ever for almost a decade is going downhill because of socialist America. I can't even imagine how you guys can say it with a straight face.

The Bush administration was pro-market? Bwahaha! You cannot be serious. The administration that gave us steel tariffs, no-bid contracts out the wazoo and, to top it all off with a turd, TARP/bailouts? Get out of town.

Msut77

07-18-2009, 02:01 AM

You aren't doing a very good job at denial prince.

Capitalizt

07-18-2009, 02:25 AM

Your chart is beyond outdated myke. The cost of the bailout to date is well into the trillions. The banks/insurers received the vast majority, but but the autos alone received at least $80b.

Is that not what you wanted? Did they not forward your agenda?

No, I don't favor tax credits, loans, subsidies, deductions, bla bla.. Tweaking a modern Keynesian/interventionist system with lower penalties here or there isn't going to do the trick. I favor decontrolling..abolition..the government stepping from the economic sphere entirely. Small policy changes don't really change long the term incentives much. We need complete elimination of government departments..elimination of things like capital gains taxes and all other penalties on investment, which is the foundation of job creation..but it's never gonna happen. To many people hold the "Get those rich bastards!" attitude, and class warfare is undoubtedly an effective tool for politicians.

Personally, I'm no fool, I know that we need corporations to keep this massive economy going. But we also don't need corporations who will screw over everyone else to make a quick buck. There has to be a balance. I think that a lot of these business people need to take more ethics classes while in college or something, they just need to realize that when they make their gobs of money that they do it in a moral way.

After reading that Rolling Stones article about Goldman Sachs, my mind has completely changed about corporations and what some of them pull.

I'm not going to defend the behavior of these megacorps like Goldman who get into bed with government..incfluencing politicians and using government power to exploit people and expand their profits. That is borderline fascism and is completely detestable, but you should not forget it is only possible because politcians CAN BE BOUGHT. Your anger should be directed at government rather than private industry for this reason. No private employer has the power to point a gun to the head of their employees and demand they work without pay, nor do they have the right to point a gun to the head of you and demand you buy their products. The government is the only institution with a legal monopoly on force, and for that reason we should be much more wary about about growth in government power than growth in private power.

In the absence of government complicity, Goldman would be limited to what any other corporation is limited to in a civilized society..and the worst they could do is politely beg consumers to buy their products. Capitalism is based on voluntary actions...VOLUNTARY being the key word. Force and coercion are traits of government power. They are distinctly anti-capitalist ideas and can only occur with a government's blessing or when the government turns a blind eye (as they did with GS). The principle of capitalism is mutual trade based on mutual benefit...a system of voluntary trade where no transaction will take place unless both parties believe they are benefiting from it in some way. Any "screwing over" would necessarily take place because the consumer allowed himself to be screwed..not because he was forced into it by a government mandate. Are some people going to be taken advantage of out of ignorance? Sure..but that is the price we must pay for living in a free world. If people aren't free to choose wrongly or irresponsibly, they aren't free at all.

Is this what we have today? No...Every major government around the world is a capitalist/socialist/fascist monster that bears no resemblance to the ideals I'm talking about.. The "capitalism" I hear being criticized on these forums is not capitalism at all..It a twisted hybrid of corporatism and fascism, and believe it or not, I agree entirely with the anger of most of you guys..but your blame is simply misplaced. It should not be directed at those who take advantage of government power...It should be directed at the government power itself..at those who manipulate the cogs of state to favor special interests at the expense of everyone else. THEY are the ones who deserve the blame, not the special interests themselves.

Paco

07-18-2009, 03:03 AM

Pell grants are from the federal government, fullmetal.

And cap, China is building a Philadelphia each month but at what cost to the enviroment. The air is filthy, their rivers are choked, and their farm land is soon to be unsustainable. How is that a good thing just because people are making money?

Business never gives a damn about the common man or the environment but we're supposed to bend over backwards to make this a better place for big business? Please. I'll grow my own food and switch over to solar and wind power as soon as I buy a house. Real independence is what made this nation great not sucking on businesses tit so we can make more money.

I'm going to have to agree with this man fully. Sure China is going to be having big cities, but when you destroy the farmland, how exactly are you going to sustain those billion populations? I'm from such an area where for the most part it was once mainly farmland with farmers, but because of the housing booms and the moves to modernize or make this area into a city, we lost a ton of farmland, and we built tons of houses. With the housing bust, we have tons of foreclosed houses, tons of repos, houses not being filled and our once abundant farmlands are for the most part gone and with soaring unemployment in this area, things don't look too damn good. What once made this area great is now turning into a god damn cesspool and the once proud people who lived here are starting to be run out of this area.

XxFuRy2Xx

07-18-2009, 11:46 AM

Is this what we have today? No...Every major government around the world is a capitalist/socialist/fascist monster that bears no resemblance to the ideals I'm talking about.. The "capitalism" I hear being criticized on these forums is not capitalism at all..It a twisted hybrid of corporatism and fascism, and believe it or not, I agree entirely with the anger of most of you guys..but your blame is simply misplaced. It should not be directed at those who take advantage of government power...It should be directed at the government power itself..at those who manipulate the cogs of state to favor special interests at the expense of everyone else. THEY are the ones who deserve the blame, not the special interests themselves.This is where I disagree, our anger should be directed at BOTH. Those who are willing to be bought, and those who do the buying.

Just because you know you can get away with something doesn't mean you should do it. That's why I think all of these business people who attend college need to take an ethics class of some kind every school year, so hopefully it's pounded into their heads.

I also think that people shouldn't be allowed to be career politicians. This just makes them hungrier for more power, making it easier for shenanigans to happen.

mykevermin

07-18-2009, 11:56 AM

Your chart is beyond outdated myke. The cost of the bailout to date is well into the trillions. The banks/insurers received the vast majority, but but the autos alone received at least $80b.

Wait. You're not one of those people who keeps misreading statistics, like that dude with the Jesse "The Body" Ventura avatar, and thinks we're spending $13T on bailouts this year, are you?

Nevertheless, it's stunning how the past 30 years haven't done a damn thing to damage attitudes towards "trickle-down economics" policies amongst so many of you, but 3 months of Keynesian policies are enough to make you scream about how America is going to end any day now.

It's more partisan politics and ridiculous overreacting than it is genuine concern with how politics run in the US, but I'm sure you feel genuinely concerned about what you stand for.

Just keep in mind - anytime you're outraged about government expenditure, you started caring after the national debt hit $10 Trillion. It didn't matter until then for you.

elprincipe

07-18-2009, 02:25 PM

I also think that people shouldn't be allowed to be career politicians. This just makes them hungrier for more power, making it easier for shenanigans to happen.

It's our fault really. We keep reelecting these fuckers. But I agree, no career politicians would be a huge improvement. Think about it, what do you value when your whole career is dedicated to winning reelection? And what effect does that most-valuable thing have on your behavior? Sooner or later we're either going to wake up or die, America.

speedracer

07-18-2009, 02:32 PM

1. Respect people. 2. Respect their property rights.
And yet both of those are in direct conflict with the only rule of capitalism: make more money. How exactly do you reconcile the two?
I'm not going to defend the behavior of these megacorps like Goldman who get into bed with government..incfluencing politicians and using government power to exploit people and expand their profits. That is borderline fascism and is completely detestable, but you should not forget it is only possible because politcians CAN BE BOUGHT.
Are we in bizarro world now? If people couldn't be bought, capitalism wouldn't work. Your cure is the disease.

Or my personal favorite: Capitalism isn't fucked up, just the psychos running it. But if you cut their taxes, I'm sure everything will work out. Is this not the weirdest shit myke?

1. Government has the power of force.
2. Capitalism, once ingrained, uses government to defend itself from capitalism.
3. Therefore it is government that must be killed so that capitalism can survive and thrive.

But see, if we get rid of the checks on capitalism, they won't go back to being as nasty as they are now. You just need to remove their ability to defend themselves via the government. They will not spend tons of money finding new and creative ways to defend their wealth, even though that's obviously in their best interests and therefore the only rational thing for the market to do.

lol

In the absence of government complicity, Goldman would be limited to what any other corporation is limited to in a civilized society..and the worst they could do is politely beg consumers to buy their products.
Absent regulation, the whole experience of capitalism has been as nasty as fast as possible. How can you possibly support that position with real data?

mykevermin

07-18-2009, 02:43 PM

Government non-intervention will control the greedy and the power elite.

Duh.

elprincipe, I agree with the self-blame for career politicians - but that's part of fundamental attribution error, something that pervades every part of our life. We re-elect our own incumbents and lament about career politicians in the same way we sit in our car in traffic and get pissed off that everybody else is driving shitty and getting in our way.

KingBroly

07-18-2009, 02:43 PM

Wait. You're not one of those people who keeps misreading statistics, like that dude with the Jesse "The Body" Ventura avatar, and thinks we're spending $13T on bailouts this year, are you?

Nevertheless, it's stunning how the past 30 years haven't done a damn thing to damage attitudes towards "trickle-down economics" policies amongst so many of you, but 3 months of Keynesian policies are enough to make you scream about how America is going to end any day now.

It's more partisan politics and ridiculous overreacting than it is genuine concern with how politics run in the US, but I'm sure you feel genuinely concerned about what you stand for.

Just keep in mind - anytime you're outraged about government expenditure, you started caring after the national debt hit $10 Trillion. It didn't matter until then for you.

I don't think the national debt was $10 trillion in 2004. Nor do I think was the budget deficit $2 trillion for 2004.

depascal22

07-18-2009, 03:06 PM

mykevermin

07-18-2009, 03:18 PM

I don't think the national debt was $10 trillion in 2004. Nor do I think was the budget deficit $2 trillion for 2004.

Your revisionist history is appalling.

Like you were upset with Bush's policies in 2004.

willardhaven

07-18-2009, 03:28 PM

Every few months we need to be reminded of how dumb and unaware some people are.

soonersfan60

07-18-2009, 04:06 PM

I also agree on term limits for politicians. We have an elite ruling class that just keeps getting re-elected. Even when we elect fresh blood like in '94 and '06, they go power hungry and pull off the same crap that the defeated party was guilty of. Two terms is good enough for the President, it should be good enough for both houses.

I agree that term limits would help, but I also can't help but think that there will be "wink, wink" arrangements. I mean, even now it can be seen with all of these former business titans getting involved with government and helping out their old firms (often at the expense of former competitors).

elprincipe

07-19-2009, 02:50 AM

elprincipe, I agree with the self-blame for career politicians - but that's part of fundamental attribution error, something that pervades every part of our life. We re-elect our own incumbents and lament about career politicians in the same way we sit in our car in traffic and get pissed off that everybody else is driving shitty and getting in our way.

Yep. I get very angry with our politicians, and it's quite reasonable given the fact that most of them do a lousy job. But if you think about it, who put them there to do a lousy job? Who keeps reelecting idiots like Barney Frank, John Murtha, Ted Stevens (okay, until last year...even then he barely lost), Don Young, Henry Waxman, Jim Moran, Ed Markey, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Alan Mollohan, Joe Barton, just to name a few? My fellow Americans.

So yes, I guess that makes me angry with a lot of people who vote because they can't see that Democrats and Republicans alike play them for chumps, and have for a long time. Stop allowing yourself to be bribed with your own money taken from you by the government and returned by your oh-so-caring congressman...at least when he wasn't voting for the Patriot Act, TARP and cap-and-trade. Given what has occurred over the past year, started by a Republican administration and continued by a Democratic one, where even with rosy estimates our national debt is set to increase to 80 percent of GDP in 10 years (it's 40 percent now), it's time to either wake up and slay the federal Mr. Hyde we've created or our country as we know it will cease to exist, drowned in a sea of red ink and broken promises, not to mention the outsourcing of our future to pay for our politicians' ill-gotten careers today.

georox

07-19-2009, 03:02 AM

Then fucking leave. Nobody is forcing you to stay here and pay taxes. Either start the revolution or get out.

The last thing I'm gonna do is feel sorry or appreciate rich people. Why don't you guys appreciate the struggle of a single mother with three kids? To you, they're just welfare babies sucking on the tit of America. Where's the appreciation or compassion for them? Appreciate the rich? Fuck that.

Fuck the rich, kill the poor.

A lot of people in utter poverty bring it upon themselves, then they get free hand-outs. People that work hard and barely scrape by don't qualify for jack fucking shit. Either you epicly fail and get everything handed to you, your born with the silver spoon up your ass, or you get ritualistically fucked at every chance you get for actually trying to get somewhere.

So, in my closing statement, fuck the rich, kill the poor.

camoor

07-19-2009, 04:33 AM

The last thing I'm gonna do is feel sorry or appreciate rich people. Why don't you guys appreciate the struggle of a single mother with three kids? To you, they're just welfare babies sucking on the tit of America. Where's the appreciation or compassion for them? Appreciate the rich? Fuck that.

Weird thing is, I do have compassion for that mother. But she's single. With three kids. Not one, three. Seriously - WTF?? The rest of us wait till we can afford kids to have them. In modern America, there is absolutely no excuse for having 3 kids out of wedlock if you can't afford them.

depascal22

07-19-2009, 01:50 PM

Weird thing is, I do have compassion for that mother. But she's single. With three kids. Not one, three. Seriously - WTF?? The rest of us wait till we can afford kids to have them. In modern America, there is absolutely no excuse for having 3 kids out of wedlock if you can't afford them.

If you don't have a father figure in the house, you'll go anywhere to get some love and attention. If that same guy refuses to use a condom and you don't really know about birth control, what else happens? You guys keep acting like single mothers bring it upon themselves.

Koggit

07-19-2009, 03:33 PM

Regardless of how you want to argue how the rich don't pay taxes, this is reality from the federal government (calendar year 2001):
http://www.reflectonreality.com/tax.jpg

Without the rich, the programs for the poor would crumble and cease to exist - or at best they would be severly castrated. And, the huge amount of money to finance that alone should be enough of a mandatory contribution of their wealth. Many rich people also donate to charities, but not all do. That is where freedom steps in, freedom to spend the money you earned as you wish (to a point). That is why I don't think even more taxes and charges should be lumped upon them - they are clearly already doing more than their fair share and giving a massive percentage of the money they earn to the gov't.

you're wrong though. the numbers you're being fed are deceptive. not only are those people bringing in enormously disprorpriate amounts of the wealthy (e.g. something you ask yourself is "how much of the nation's income is that top 50% pulling?" because if they're pulling in 90% and being taxed 90% then that's flat), but fed income tax is a large portion of our tax burden but it can't be looked at exclusively, unless you want propaganda instead of an accurate pulse. just by including social security those numbers (percent burdens of the wealthy) drop substantially, and even more when you consider other tax burdens. some taxes, such as those on gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, roads, electricity, tariffs on food, etc, are actually regressive and hit the poor harder than the rich, equalizing the field a bit.

yes, the rich pay a disproportionate amount of america's taxes, that's the idea, progressive taxation has historically proven to improve general welfare, the fantasy Randian arguments against it are unfounded... it's really unfortunate that our system isn't more progressive -- its just too bad the wealthy hold far more power than the poor in a democracy.

edit: too lazy to research a lot and get really solid numbers, but check this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Progressive_nature

cliff's notes: the top 20% bring in 52.4% of the nation's income, and pay only 65.3% of the federal income + social security burden. this is without factoring in the regressive taxes mentioned above, which would only lower that number further.

speedracer

07-19-2009, 11:00 PM

Yep. I get very angry with our politicians, and it's quite reasonable given the fact that most of them do a lousy job. But if you think about it, who put them there to do a lousy job?
The elite in the country that decide who gets to run, who gets funded, and who gets party support. Protip: None of those people are not millionaires.

Who keeps reelecting idiots like Barney Frank, John Murtha, Ted Stevens (okay, until last year...even then he barely lost), Don Young, Henry Waxman, Jim Moran, Ed Markey, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Alan Mollohan, Joe Barton, just to name a few? My fellow Americans.
Are they given some choice? Let's be real bro.

You MUST be Christian.
You MUST be rich.
You MUST have come from an upper class learning institution.
You MUST reject all economic forms except capitalism.

Are you expecting more choice then? You talk shit against socialism, you want revolution but you don't actually want revolution. You just want more of the current cure, as if a double dose of the status quo will get you over the hump.

How much longer do we have to put up with this shit? If capitalism thrives on choice, why is it so instinctual for capitalists to prohibit competition?

elprincipe

07-20-2009, 01:40 AM

The elite in the country that decide who gets to run, who gets funded, and who gets party support. Protip: None of those people are not millionaires.

Yes, as a result of our acceptance of the corrupt and anti-democratic two-party system and the corrupt and anti-democratic parties that come with it.

Are they given some choice? Let's be real bro.

You MUST be Christian.
You MUST be rich.
You MUST have come from an upper class learning institution.
You MUST reject all economic forms except capitalism.

Are you expecting more choice then? You talk shit against socialism, you want revolution but you don't actually want revolution. You just want more of the current cure, as if a double dose of the status quo will get you over the hump.

How much longer do we have to put up with this shit? If capitalism thrives on choice, why is it so instinctual for capitalists to prohibit competition?

What does this have to do with capitalism? Yes, we have a choice. We can stop voting for idiot A or idiot B. We can choose another option. Others can get on the ballot without a D or R by their name. Unfortunately, people accept the status quo in this area, and that's the root of most of the problems we are experiencing.

Of course I'll talk shit against socialism and I'll continue to do so. Our country is already too socialist; current trends of making it ever more so will merely accelerate our economic destruction. Our problem is not that our country is too capitalist, so I fully disagree with you on that. I think history and the present both strongly support my views.

Msut77

07-20-2009, 02:01 AM

How much longer do we have to put up with this shit? If capitalism thrives on choice, why is it so instinctual for capitalists to prohibit competition?

If I had to guess it is because most Americans do not understand the definitions and distinctions.

Those that rail against socialism as it is being used here the most are always among the most ignorant. Exhibit A: prince.

speedracer

07-20-2009, 10:21 AM

What does this have to do with capitalism? Yes, we have a choice. We can stop voting for idiot A or idiot B.
The current political system is a direct outgrowth of our economic system. Vested interests (ie people with money) want it this way. If they didn't, things would change quickly wouldn't they?
Of course I'll talk shit against socialism and I'll continue to do so. Our country is already too socialist; current trends of making it ever more so will merely accelerate our economic destruction. Our problem is not that our country is too capitalist, so I fully disagree with you on that. I think history and the present both strongly support my views.
And this is my problem with the "modern" capitalist. No matter the issue at hand, the answer is ALWAYS cutting taxes and/or reducing regulation. At some point, reasonable people have to disregard that as a feasible solution. It's like arguing with a communist who complains that their system was doomed because their host was never communist enough. I think Marx (OMG MARX, we shan't even speak the name!!!! Why is that again?) explained the current financial situation best a long time ago:
Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.
If that's not the perfect description of the modern financial institution, I don't know what is.

thrustbucket

07-20-2009, 12:14 PM

you're wrong though. the numbers you're being fed are deceptive. not only are those people bringing in enormously disprorpriate amounts of the wealthy (e.g. something you ask yourself is "how much of the nation's income is that top 50% pulling?" because if they're pulling in 90% and being taxed 90% then that's flat), but fed income tax is a large portion of our tax burden but it can't be looked at exclusively, unless you want propaganda instead of an accurate pulse. just by including social security those numbers (percent burdens of the wealthy) drop substantially, and even more when you consider other tax burdens. some taxes, such as those on gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, roads, electricity, tariffs on food, etc, are actually regressive and hit the poor harder than the rich, equalizing the field a bit.

yes, the rich pay a disproportionate amount of america's taxes, that's the idea, progressive taxation has historically proven to improve general welfare, the fantasy Randian arguments against it are unfounded... it's really unfortunate that our system isn't more progressive -- its just too bad the wealthy hold far more power than the poor in a democracy.

edit: too lazy to research a lot and get really solid numbers, but check this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Progressive_nature

cliff's notes: the top 20% bring in 52.4% of the nation's income, and pay only 65.3% of the federal income + social security burden. this is without factoring in the regressive taxes mentioned above, which would only lower that number further.

And that's my biggest beef with the Democratic party. They are happy to put forth the above argument all day long. But when you point out that major firms like Goldman and Sachs make billions in profit each quarter and pay pretty much no taxes - you'll get winks and nods.

Coincidently, they were the biggest private contributor to Obama's campaign (and McCain, I believe).

We have to tax the holy bejeezus out of rich individuals because we are unable/unwilling to tax the megacorps.

This is a great Rolling Stones article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine) about just that. I considered making a thread on it but I know it would just get filled up with the usual CAG's calling it conspiracy theory (even though it's all fact based, as far as I can tell).

As long as we keep allowing the long standing tradition of certain government positions having revolving doors to executives of banks and financial institutions, and continue our apathy about the fact the Fed can't be audited - this will never change.

We are only maybe a decade away from officially changing the country name to "United States of Goldman Sach's and friends".

GuilewasNK

07-20-2009, 12:20 PM

Can we do away with the two-party system now? Please? Seriously, it's just one step up from the North Korean setup, only we have two choices (regardless of what anyone says) instead of one. Yay variety.

redline

07-20-2009, 12:37 PM

This is a great Rolling Stones article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine) about just that. I considered making a thread on it but I know it would just get filled up with the usual CAG's calling it conspiracy theory (even though it's all fact based, as far as I can tell).

This shit should be made into a movie. Where's Michael Moore?

KingBroly

07-20-2009, 12:38 PM

The way our system works whenever a third party comes around, their ideas get split between the 2 parties and that third party is dissolved. Whether you like it or not, that's how it happens.

thrustbucket

07-20-2009, 12:40 PM

This shit should be made into a movie. Where's Michael Moore?

If he made a movie about that stuff, it would be the first Michael Moore movie I'd be anxious to see.

nasum

07-20-2009, 12:59 PM

A surtax that runs to 5.4 percent of all earnings of the top 1 percent of Americans, who already pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes

------------
I'm getting a bit tired of that statistic as it is quite a misnomer. You can't double team percentages to make a point when you don't explain the whole. It's typical "talk-radio debate" where there is no conclusion, only a factoid used to make a point. Let's say there's a simple and flat 10% tax rate. The top 1% of earners will still account for more of the tax-based income simply because they earn more. The real argument should be that the top 1% of earners pay more "as a percentage of their personal income" and this simply isn't true given the amount of deductions that can be taken on investment losses, write-offs for charitable donations, expenses due to investment properties, etc... With enough time (and money to find a good CPA) to investigate the tax laws, your average millionaire can pull an adjusted gross income that could easily be considered upper-middle class and be under this supposed wealth tax.

The thing that really concerns me is how small businesses fall under these tax rules. Based on tax brackets a Subchapter S or an LLC may be required to file under a higher bracket then they really should. Granted, this again, is a bit of a talk radio talking point because these businesses can severely reduce their tax liability with write-offs and proper tax planning, but the point remains to be somewhat true. If you tax small business out of business, then you have less employment opporunity and less entrprenurial ingenuity in the workforce and economy. With less of that available, well then you need to pay out more from the govt. It's kind of a vicious self-repeating cycle a la~ Fat Bastard's eating based depression.

depascal22

07-20-2009, 02:45 PM

Neither party truly wants small business to succeed. Small business don't donate money like Coke, Nike, and all the other super-conglomerations.

nasum

07-20-2009, 03:04 PM

true to a certain extent, but the next Nike, Coke, etc... is one of those small businesses. We just need a nother nerd in a garage with a dream and unsrupulous desire to rip off a copier company...

depascal22

07-20-2009, 03:08 PM

Why worry about possibilities when super large companies are definately throwing big bucks at the politicos? Those super large companies lobby very hard to keep small local business small and local. Higher corporate taxes are a blessing and a curse for them. They're paying more money but they're making more money because small competitors will be forced out of business. "Free market capitalism" wins again.

elprincipe

07-21-2009, 12:03 AM

The current political system is a direct outgrowth of our economic system. Vested interests (ie people with money) want it this way. If they didn't, things would change quickly wouldn't they?

You would have us cut off our noses to spite our face. No thank you.

And this is my problem with the "modern" capitalist. No matter the issue at hand, the answer is ALWAYS cutting taxes and/or reducing regulation. At some point, reasonable people have to disregard that as a feasible solution.

It's easy to argue for less taxes when you feel, like I do, that the federal government is about 10 times too big, or even more. Obviously at some point you need to have some taxes and some regulation, so the answer is not always to cut taxes and reduce regulation, despite your strawman argument. I could just as well say that your answer is always to increase taxes and regulation, which is just as dumb.

The question is, are we overtaxed and overregulated, or undertaxed and underregulated? Or is the status quo the best? You want to see things as low tax and low regulation now, while I see them as high tax and high regulation. Certainly we have much higher tax rates and vast oceans of regulations compared to most of our history.

elprincipe

07-21-2009, 12:05 AM

This shit should be made into a movie. Where's Michael Moore?

Fuck Michael Moore. Where's someone honest and reputable?

GuilewasNK

07-21-2009, 12:15 AM

Fuck Michael Moore. Where's someone honest and reputable?

You'd have to find someone with no party affiliation for that.

speedracer

07-21-2009, 12:19 AM

It's easy to argue for less taxes when you feel, like I do, that the federal government is about 10 times too big, or even more. Obviously at some point you need to have some taxes and some regulation, so the answer is not always to cut taxes and reduce regulation, despite your strawman argument.
Right, but my point is that I've never heard one of "you guys" not say that. I mean ok, it's a straw man. Aside from that, I am actually correct, right? I just so happen to be right this time *wink wink* right?

The question is, are we overtaxed and overregulated, or undertaxed and underregulated? Or is the status quo the best? You want to see things as low tax and low regulation now, while I see them as high tax and high regulation. Certainly we have much higher tax rates and vast oceans of regulations compared to most of our history.
Um yea. Also whites don't own negros anymore like they did for the majority of our history. And women vote. And companies can't sell shit they know will kill you (mostly!). But if you think they governmental shakedown is a new American phenomena, you need to meet my good friend Mr. George Washington Carver.

**edit** - My response to the 2nd part has bothered me all night. It's this desire to frame it as a historical anomaly. That sauce is weak. I don't see how anyone can reasonably compare anything happening today with anything happening at a point in time that was by all modern accounts shameful across the board..

"Well everything else sucked, but at least we didn't tax and regulate like we do now!"

Well, um, maybe that's why things don't heinously suck anymore?

elprincipe

07-21-2009, 11:00 PM

Right, but my point is that I've never heard one of "you guys" not say that. I mean ok, it's a straw man. Aside from that, I am actually correct, right? I just so happen to be right this time *wink wink* right?

Wait, who is "you guys"?

Um yea. Also whites don't own negros anymore like they did for the majority of our history. And women vote. And companies can't sell shit they know will kill you (mostly!). But if you think they governmental shakedown is a new American phenomena, you need to meet my good friend Mr. George Washington Carver.

**edit** - My response to the 2nd part has bothered me all night. It's this desire to frame it as a historical anomaly. That sauce is weak. I don't see how anyone can reasonably compare anything happening today with anything happening at a point in time that was by all modern accounts shameful across the board..

"Well everything else sucked, but at least we didn't tax and regulate like we do now!"

Well, um, maybe that's why things don't heinously suck anymore?

You think everything about America sucked before we started growing our federal government into the behemoth it is today? That is most interesting and revealing. Obviously there are some things in our history that we are not proud of, as with any civilization. However, given that overall we are where we are today, I'd say we must have been doing something right, don't you think? After all, this isn't Zimbabwe or North Korea, is it?

speedracer

07-22-2009, 12:02 AM

Wait, who is "you guys"?
You know. You guys that we just determined are always about cutting taxes and regulation.
You think everything about America sucked before we started growing our federal government into the behemoth it is today? That is most interesting and revealing.
Get over yourself douchebag.
Obviously there are some things in our history that we are not proud of, as with any civilization. However, given that overall we are where we are today, I'd say we must have been doing something right, don't you think? After all, this isn't Zimbabwe or North Korea, is it?
Right. Now we get to talk about the lowest common denominator.

Never mind dude. I have no patience for this kind of stupid.

elprincipe

07-22-2009, 11:31 PM

You know. You guys that we just determined are always about cutting taxes and regulation.

When our government has grown as big as it is now, you're damn right I'm about less taxes and regulation. Maybe 100 years ago I would have been more amenable to more taxes or regulation in certain instances.

Get over yourself douchebag.

Classy. Who was it who said everything sucked before the government got big again? Oh yeah, that was you: "by all modern accounts shameful across the board," right?

Right. Now we get to talk about the lowest common denominator.

Never mind dude. I have no patience for this kind of stupid.

I'm not the one claiming that most of our country's history is "shameful across the board" when that is a ludicrous and quite frankly offensive statement. If you have no patience for stupidity, don't say stupid things like that.

speedracer

07-23-2009, 10:49 AM

When our government has grown as big as it is now, you're damn right I'm about less taxes and regulation. Maybe 100 years ago I would have been more amenable to more taxes or regulation in certain instances.
I can't imagine a more clear need for better regulation, more uniformly enforced regulation, and more clear regulation to deal with the types of instruments being used in the financial sector. I don't understand how a reasonable person could disagree.

Classy. Who was it who said everything sucked before the government got big again? Oh yeah, that was you: "by all modern accounts shameful across the board," right?
You and I are not new here. I think you get my meaning and can read between the lines. You're being obtuse on purpose.
I'm not the one claiming that most of our country's history is "shameful across the board" when that is a ludicrous and quite frankly offensive statement. If you have no patience for stupidity, don't say stupid things like that.
Indulge me: aside from the two world wars, what are you most proud of in American history?

Ready to be honest? Were the first 5 things you thought of based wholly in liberalism?

Msut77

07-23-2009, 12:09 PM

It is a fact prince is a right wing ideologue, he gets very pissy when someone points that out.

It isn't terribly uncommon but I always found it odd.

elprincipe

07-23-2009, 10:37 PM

I can't imagine a more clear need for better regulation, more uniformly enforced regulation, and more clear regulation to deal with the types of instruments being used in the financial sector. I don't understand how a reasonable person could disagree.

You are moving the goalposts. We were talking about more regulation versus less, not about better versus worse. Of course better and more uniform regulation is preferable to the alternative, but that doesn't mean more regulation.

Indulge me: aside from the two world wars, what are you most proud of in American history?

It may shock you to learn I'm not proud of any wars. I'm most proud of our Constitution and democratic tradition, and the way we've moved in that regard (to include those once excluded from our democratic process) over time.

I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, not the arrow for its swiftness, not the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend

Ready to be honest? Were the first 5 things you thought of based wholly in liberalism?

I don't follow you, "based wholly in liberalism"? What are you asking? Do you mean modern or classical liberalism? Please explain.

speedracer

07-24-2009, 10:57 AM

You are moving the goalposts. We were talking about more regulation versus less, not about better versus worse. Of course better and more uniform regulation is preferable to the alternative, but that doesn't mean more regulation.
I think we're just defining it differently, I don't think goalposts are being moved per se. Using the financial instrument example, there's nothing on the books to handle these new instruments. It would specifically require new regulation to handle them. That's a big reason why they loved them so irrationally.

I think we would agree that a rethink of how regulation even takes place in this country would require a big overhaul. I think if reasonable people sat down and looked at what needs regulation and how it should be done (with a clean slate in mind), we would end up with far more, not less regulation. Shit, how many food recalls this summer? Last summer? Summer before that?

To tie it back the to the OP, of course the capitalists will bounce to China for the fewer regulations. There's more money to be made there. But who here trusts food from China? Who here trusts ANYTHING from China? We can complain about regulation all we want, but that's what keeps the capitalists even slightly in line. Nothing would prevent them from creating a shell company, pumping trash into the food supply, then folding and walking when we find more shit in the milk.

How does the modern capitalist free market supporter find a way to fix this very brutal reality of their theology without espousing strong regulation? I've yet to hear a rational response.

It may shock you to learn I'm not proud of any wars. I'm most proud of our Constitution and democratic tradition, and the way we've moved in that regard (to include those once excluded from our democratic process) over time.

I don't follow you, "based wholly in liberalism"? What are you asking? Do you mean modern or classical liberalism? Please explain.
That's where I was going with that. Most people are most proud of our most "liberal" moments socially (and with damn good reason). Nobody is "most proud" of our economic liberalism. That's what I meant when I said, to paraphrase, the whole "everything sucked" thing. We all have this need to romanticize our history. I don't get it. 1800s America was a nasty place to be. Most of the 1900s America was a nasty place to be. Today we're proud most specifically of the changes we've recently (relatively speaking) made from the first 200 or so years.

fullmetalfan720

07-24-2009, 11:27 AM

That's where I was going with that. Most people are most proud of our most "liberal" moments socially (and with damn good reason). Nobody is "most proud" of our economic liberalism. That's what I meant when I said, to paraphrase, the whole "everything sucked" thing. We all have this need to romanticize our history. I don't get it. 1800s America was a nasty place to be. Most of the 1900s America was a nasty place to be. Today we're proud most specifically of the changes we've recently (relatively speaking) made from the first 200 or so years.
Really? In early 1900s and all of 1800s America, we had money backed by specie, now we have phantom money backed by nothing, that can be printed on demand, that loses value every day. In early 1900s and the 1800s we didn't have a huge federal debt that we never paid off. In those times we had leaders who actually cared about this country, and its people, and not just their pocketbook. Since then, in the past 47 years we have had one president who wasn't completely corrupt and bought and paid for, and well, he was murdered. In that time there was no income tax, and other taxes were low. As a result of the industrial revolution, this nation was rapidly growing. Now, our economy has gone to hell, because we have allowed government to get too big, and allowed big corporations the opportunity to exploit this.
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

thrustbucket

07-24-2009, 11:30 AM

Really? In early 1900s and all of 1800s America, we had money backed by specie, now we have phantom money backed by nothing, that can be printed on demand, that loses value every day. In early 1900s and the 1800s we didn't have a huge federal debt that we never paid off. In those times we had leaders who actually cared about this country, and its people, and not just their pocketbook. Since then, in the past 47 years we have had one president who wasn't completely corrupt and bought and paid for, and well, he was murdered. In that time there was no income tax, and other taxes were low. As a result of the industrial revolution, this nation was rapidly growing. Now, our economy has gone to hell, because we have allowed government to get too big, and allowed big corporations the opportunity to exploit this.
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

Amen soldier.

On a side note, I knew unhinged liberalism often produces anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, and ultimately hate for anything about one's country but total reformation - but I'd never really seen it first hand until speedracer's posts.

speedracer

07-24-2009, 01:05 PM

Really? In early 1900s and all of 1800s America, we had money backed by specie, now we have phantom money backed by nothing, that can be printed on demand, that loses value every day.
What is it with the ultra fetishist belief that if you "back" money with an otherwise worthless but shiny piece of metal, it has value? Nothing about that makes sense to me.
In early 1900s and the 1800s we didn't have a huge federal debt that we never paid off. In those times we had leaders who actually cared about this country, and its people, and not just their pocketbook.
Really? This is amazing news! Oh wait.
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=435
Since then, in the past 47 years we have had one president who wasn't completely corrupt and bought and paid for, and well, he was murdered. In that time there was no income tax, and other taxes were low. As a result of the industrial revolution, this nation was rapidly growing. Now, our economy has gone to hell, because we have allowed government to get too big, and allowed big corporations the opportunity to exploit this.
I don't disagree that government is too big and that corporations are too powerful. Does anyone anywhere believe that? I certainly disagree that this is a new phenomena. We've been wrestling with it for our entire existence. Happy fun quote time!

"I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." -Lincoln, 145 years ago.

I clicked because I'd seen that you'd posted thrust. I was already smiling waiting to see what vapid, self-serving crap you'd vomited. My expectation that you'll add nothing to the conversation is rarely disappointed. Why, without you, we might end up talking more policy than ad hom and who wants that? Is there something wrong with being anti-nationalist? I happen to think that irrational populism doesn't do much good.

I lulz'd at the patriotism thing. I've served my country. I've got feet that ache 10 years later from the advanced frostbite that set in after being left in below zero conditions for 4 hours because I refused to disobey a standing general order. And I refuse to be "compensated" for them because it was my honor to serve. But you wouldn't even know what the general orders are now, would you?

*smooches*

fullmetalfan720

07-24-2009, 02:28 PM

What is it with the ultra fetishist belief that if you "back" money with an otherwise worthless but shiny piece of metal, it has value? Nothing about that makes sense to me.
For over 6,000 years gold and silver have held their value. Since we went off the gold standard the dollar has lost 94% of its purchasing power. If you think gold and silver are worthless, let me tell you something. The rest of the world disagrees with you. Just look at the gold and silver prices now compared to 1964, 1933, or 1971.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/images/summers060209a.gif

Really? This is amazing news! Oh wait.
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=435Notice how the debt is kept at a low level, and paid off when it is accumulated by the civil war. Until 1913. Then it starts to become higher, and isn't paid off as much, or as often. Now, we never pay off our debt.

I don't disagree that government is too big and that corporations are too powerful. Does anyone anywhere believe that? I certainly disagree that this is a new phenomena. We've been wrestling with it for our entire existence. Happy fun quote time!

"I see in the future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war." -Lincoln, 145 years ago.What Lincoln is talking about there is something that has plagued our nation for a long time. From the time of our country being created, to 1913, we had struggled to keep a central bank away from the US. We had seen what happened to countries that had central banks, and did not want that for us. Unfortunately in 1913, we ended up with a private central bank in the form of the federal reserve. Since then, our money has largely become worthless,and the government has been pretty much taken over by the large corporations. Politicians have become bought and paid for, using their power to do what their financiers want, not what the people want. They have grown the Federal government into a huge corporation owned pile of bullshit. No longer do politicians care what the people want, they just care what the people who give them money want. Almost every politician today is a career politician who makes a living off screwing over the people of this country.

fullmetalfan720

07-24-2009, 02:38 PM

I would recommend looking at this editorial that I found too:
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/0106.html

Inflation in my adult years increased average prices 1,000% or more:

a postage stamp in the 1950s cost 3 cents; today's cost is 39 cents - 1,300% inflation;
a gallon of full-service gasoline cost 18 cents before; today it is $2.28 for self-service - 1,267 % inflation;
a new house in 1959 averaged $14,900; today it's $282,300 - 1,795% inflation (+1,510% if quality-adjusted);
a dental crown used to cost $40; today it's $740 - 1,750% inflation;
an ice cream cone in 1950 cost 5 cents; today its $2.50 - 4,900% inflation;
monthly government Medicare insurance premiums paid by seniors was $5.30 in 1970; its now $88.50 - 1,664% inflation;
several generations ago a person worked 1.4 months per year to pay for government; he now works 5 months.
and in the past, one wage-earner families lived well and built savings with minimal debt, many paying off their home and college-educating children without loans. How about today?

speedracer

07-24-2009, 03:21 PM

For over 6,000 years gold and silver have held their value. Since we went off the gold standard the dollar has lost 94% of its purchasing power. If you think gold and silver are worthless, let me tell you something. The rest of the world disagrees with you. Just look at the gold and silver prices now compared to 1964, 1933, or 1971.
Absolutely. I'd be the first to tell you everyone around me disagrees. But it doesn't address the issue at hand. The Europeans won and now everyone thinks of it as a base value. But how is that belief different than "believing" in dollars or beads or grains of sand? We've all internalized the somehow amusing idea of Native Americans wanting beads. The naivete of its primitive nature is cute but unrealistic. I don't get how gold is different.

This is my biggest issue with those that want to go screaming back to the days before Bretton. Aren't we just substituting naive assignments of value? We lose our minds at the thought of the central bank being the scumbags they are and essentially deciding the value of money at their own whim. It's BS (really, it is and I agree)! But how does trading paper for a rock help in real terms?
Notice how the debt is kept at a low level, and paid off when it is accumulated by the civil war. Until 1913. Then it starts to become higher, and isn't paid off as much, or as often. Now, we never pay off our debt.
The Christians call it original sin. If we're going to get all huffy about it, our nation was born with this economic original sin. I'm down with your position that it's getting "worse", but I don't think it could reasonably end any other way and don't see the need to distinguish today from yesterday as a result.

That makes sense in my head, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes for a reader. Give me the benefit of the doubt on that position. I'm just trying to get an idea across there.
What Lincoln is talking about there is something that has plagued our nation for a long time. From the time of our country being created, to 1913, we had struggled to keep a central bank away from the US. We had seen what happened to countries that had central banks, and did not want that for us. Unfortunately in 1913, we ended up with a private central bank in the form of the federal reserve. Since then, our money has largely become worthless,and the government has been pretty much taken over by the large corporations. Politicians have become bought and paid for, using their power to do what their financiers want, not what the people want. They have grown the Federal government into a huge corporation owned pile of bullshit. No longer do politicians care what the people want, they just care what the people who give them money want. Almost every politician today is a career politician who makes a living off screwing over the people of this country.
This is one of my core problems with capitalism. Capital will always position itself in a manner that enriches and enshrines its position to the detriment of others. It's the only rational, natural way for it to move. Of course it was going to infect its host government and corrupt its leaders. Of course it's going to take the cheap way every time. How can it not? Its own leaders are chucked at the first whiff of less than 5% annual returns.

I have a business degree. I find business and capital endlessly fascinating. But let's call a spade a spade here.

thrustbucket

07-24-2009, 04:12 PM

What Lincoln is talking about there is something that has plagued our nation for a long time. From the time of our country being created, to 1913, we had struggled to keep a central bank away from the US. We had seen what happened to countries that had central banks, and did not want that for us. Unfortunately in 1913, we ended up with a private central bank in the form of the federal reserve. Since then, our money has largely become worthless,and the government has been pretty much taken over by the large corporations. Politicians have become bought and paid for, using their power to do what their financiers want, not what the people want. They have grown the Federal government into a huge corporation owned pile of bullshit. No longer do politicians care what the people want, they just care what the people who give them money want. Almost every politician today is a career politician who makes a living off screwing over the people of this country.
You've seen money masters, haven't you?

For further proof of what you are saying, one only needs to count how many government positions, especially in the treasury, that are manned by former execs of banks and investment firms. It's a rotating door, and it's a huge conflict of interest that nobody really pays any attention to.

elprincipe

07-25-2009, 03:33 AM

That's where I was going with that. Most people are most proud of our most "liberal" moments socially (and with damn good reason). Nobody is "most proud" of our economic liberalism. That's what I meant when I said, to paraphrase, the whole "everything sucked" thing. We all have this need to romanticize our history. I don't get it. 1800s America was a nasty place to be. Most of the 1900s America was a nasty place to be. Today we're proud most specifically of the changes we've recently (relatively speaking) made from the first 200 or so years.

Well, yes, 1800s America was pretty nasty. Anywhere in the world was pretty nasty at that time, overall. Does this mean we shouldn't be proud of our forefathers' successes? Obviously not.

Of course people are proud of progress. Who wouldn't be (other than a few reactionary types)? That's why it's called "progress." The real issue is what constitutes progress. I would say more overbearing government, higher taxes, curtailing of personal freedoms and such are hardly "progress."

speedracer

07-28-2009, 10:17 AM

Well, yes, 1800s America was pretty nasty. Anywhere in the world was pretty nasty at that time, overall. Does this mean we shouldn't be proud of our forefathers' successes? Obviously not.

Of course people are proud of progress. Who wouldn't be (other than a few reactionary types)? That's why it's called "progress." The real issue is what constitutes progress. I would say more overbearing government, higher taxes, curtailing of personal freedoms and such are hardly "progress."
I guess that's where the fork in the road is. I think the progress is made up largely of regulation. I look at China and their horrific work conditions, badly treated population, and god awful product and think that we would look identical today without even the piss poor regulation we have today.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 10:24 AM

imagine work conditions in the 20th Century had "The Jungle" never been written, and how that would reflect on what our life is like currently.

depascal22

07-28-2009, 11:56 AM

Myke, I already wrote about that a couple pages back. Nobody seems to care. For some people, free market enterprise is Jesus, sex, and Friday night football all wrapped into one. It's Americana at it's purest.

mykevermin

07-28-2009, 11:56 AM

Throw in a double cheeseburger and I'm sold.

depascal22

07-28-2009, 11:58 AM

Double cheeseburger with bacon and extra mayo (hold the lettuce, pickles, and tomato) and it's done.

thrustbucket

07-28-2009, 05:33 PM

Free market enterprise? That's maybe the holy ghost. My Jesus is Anarchy light.

speedracer

07-29-2009, 03:39 PM

Free market enterprise? That's maybe the holy ghost. My Jesus is Anarchy light.
wat

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 12:37 AM

speedracer

07-31-2009, 10:37 AM

That's what our country was founded upon. Freedom.
I always thought the freedom part was kind of an accident foisted on us by political necessity. It seems to me that freedom only really became a strong part of our identity around the middle of the last century. We all love Jefferson's soaring language and Franklin's almost mythical nobility, but was the end result was far from what we know today as freedom, wasn't it?

Lest my ankles be nipped at by thrust again, I'm just talking about the reality of life in America for the first 200 or so years.

depascal22

07-31-2009, 10:49 AM

That's what our country was founded upon. Freedom.

You're joking right? Then how come blacks were only considered three fifths of a person and women didn't get to vote until 1920? America was founded so that white businessmen and farmers could make money without sending it back to England.

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 11:03 AM

I always thought the freedom part was kind of an accident foisted on us by political necessity. It seems to me that freedom only really became a strong part of our identity around the middle of the last century. We all love Jefferson's soaring language and Franklin's almost mythical nobility, but was the end result was far from what we know today as freedom, wasn't it?

Lest my ankles be nipped at by thrust again, I'm just talking about the reality of life in America for the first 200 or so years.
What do you think we had thought police back then? We had actual freedom back then, not this police state bullshit we have now. There was no No-Fly list, no terrorist watch list, we didn't have idiotic presidents that said "you're either with us or against us," we didn't have politicians trying to say you can't own a gun, there was no income tax, you could use your own silver and gold as currency, now if you try that you will be arrested, and sent to federal prison. When idiots created central banks, they were abolished, our representatives weren't bought and paid for, there was no such thing as rendition, or gitmo, if you tortured a British soldier during the Revolutionary War, you were prosecuted. People actually cared about following laws, now politicians don't care that they exist. They wiretap you, they violate Posse Comitatus, we have free speech zones, no fly no buy bills, the cyberbullying bill, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments are no longer cared about. So, sure the was no freedom back then.
Back when Andrew Jackson was president, someone tried to assassinate him. He beat the fucker up with his cane. I don't think any president today is that badass.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 11:08 AM

:rofl:

depascal22

07-31-2009, 11:09 AM

Fullmetal, when you say we, you really mean white land owning males. That's our problem. There wasn't a thought police but freedom only applied to a segment of the population. Freedom should apply to everyone but it didn't and there's no way you can possibly say that.

Oh, and Andrew Jackson was a racist bastard that turned the White House into a drinking club. Did you forget about the Back Door Cabinet?

Oh, and I just thought of one other thing. I'd much rather have the government tapping my phone than the KKK running amok lynching people like it's going out of style. I'd much rather have a no-fly list than being on a town's witch list and being burnt at the stake. I'd much rather have certain religious/political groups under observation instead of just banning them and/or forcing everyone in them to move to the territories like we did with the Mormons.

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 11:14 AM

You're joking right? Then how come blacks were only considered three fifths of a person and women didn't get to vote until 1920? America was founded so that white businessmen and farmers could make money without sending it back to England.
Was there other places in the world where this was any different? That's just how things were back then. When we actually follow our Constitution, we have liberty, and freedom, when we don't we have little freedom, and despotic rulers.

depascal22

07-31-2009, 11:19 AM

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 11:29 AM

That's just how it was? You can take that freedom and shove it up your ass.

Unfortunately that's how it was. During that time some people thought of minorities, and women as second class citizens. However, it wasn't the government back then that was lynching black men, and it wasn't the government calling people witches. It was people. Now we have the government murdering people, and putting them on "terrorist" lists. No where in the Constitution does it say "Go out and kill black men, and beat up women." It also does not say "you can put people you don't like on a terrorist watch list, and hide them in secret prison camps." Yes, the Constitution did originally allow only white men to vote, but it has been amended to allow every citizen over 18 to vote.

thrustbucket

07-31-2009, 11:36 AM

That's just how it was? You can take that freedom and shove it up your ass.

They had to amend the Constitution to ban slavery and give women the right to vote. They were following the Constitution and it only allowed white land owning males to vote. It wasn't about despotic rulers. It was just ignorant fools trying to preserve an economic system. Free market capitalism ruled over liberty and it always will in this country.

Are you being serious?

Yes there were oppressed groups of people at the founding of this country.
No it was not a perfect country at it's beginning.
Yes things needed changing, and they got changed.

But we have lost nearly every GOOD and unique thing about the founding and intent of this country. I think that's what Fullmetalfan means. We've taken just about every aspect of this country that COULD be used for liberty, freedom for everyone, and truly letting ANYONE excel as far as they want to according to their own efforts and dreams and we have converted it to they holy grand arbiter of fairness and equalizing.

What's sad is you make it sound like you would prefer it be changed even more than it has. And not in a good way.

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 11:45 AM

You've seen money masters, haven't you?

Yes
Are you being serious?

Yes there were oppressed groups of people at the founding of this country.
No it was not a perfect country at it's beginning.
Yes things needed changing, and they got changed.

But we have lost nearly every GOOD and unique thing about the founding and intent of this country. I think that's what Fullmetalfan means. We've taken just about every aspect of this country that COULD be used for liberty, freedom for everyone, and truly letting ANYONE excel as far as they want to according to their own efforts and dreams and we have converted it to they holy grand arbiter of fairness and equalizing.

What's sad is you make it sound like you would prefer it be changed even more than it has. And not in a good way.That's exactly what I mean. All the things that made our country great are mostly gone.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 12:16 PM

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 12:34 PM

You know what I like about the Fed Fearmongers?

Their solution to all the world's problems is to abolish the Fed and then do nothing to change capitalism - except decrease government oversight and responsibility.

It would be silly if it weren't for the fact that it's just positively fucking insane.
How is it insane to want to abolish the Fed so we can have a sound monetary policy? Additionally most people who want to abolish the Fed want government responsibility. Also, what is it you want to change about Capitalism?

depascal22

07-31-2009, 03:13 PM

Yes
That's exactly what I mean. All the things that made our country great are mostly gone.

What does that even mean?

No. I'm just tired of all of you acting like it never happened. Fullmetal said and I quote, "This country was founded on freedom." I brought up examples of how it wasn't a free country. He then brought up examples of things that are bad today (thought police and no fly list) and how they weren't in the past. How can you even compare the enslavement and disenfranchisement of a large segment of the population with a super super small percentage of the country that can't board an airplane?

But now it's not all about that. It's about how this country has changed. That's not what he said. He said it was founded on freedom and I counter that it was founded on free market capitalism. This nation was founded so the money that was made could stay here instead of going across the Atlantic.

What was the Boston Tea Party about? You think there would have been as many people on the American side if it was all about freedom? You think they would've signed on if there was no mention of taxes?

What almost made this country fall apart during the Articles of Confederation? Slavery? Noone gave a fuck about some damn dirty Negros. The states couldn't agree on money. Who had the right to print money. What was it worth. Self-centered white men couldn't agree how to split up the pie and we nearly self-destructed because of it.

You romanticize the past and then, when called out, you say that it's all gone now. Everything is different.

A country founded on freedom should've been free for everyone. I keep hearing how Jefferson and Madison thought slavery should be outlawed but did any of the Founding Fathers give their slaves their freedom? Not one decided to take a personal step for freedom and liberty. They paid it lip service but then proceeded to do what every politician has done since our founding. Please stop saying that they were all about freedom and liberty when their ACTIONS prove the opposite. Words on a paper don't mean shit when you continue to hold slaves.

speedracer

07-31-2009, 03:34 PM

Also, what is it you want to change about Capitalism?
I'm going to test a thesis of mine. What would *YOU*, a defender of capitalism, change about American capitalism? Leave out the parts reasonable people agree on (Goldman is too powerful, business is too entwined in politics, etc.).

Fullmetal, I think you'd concede that blacks don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that women don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that Asians (particularly Chinese (though aren't they all Chinese or whatever hardy har har)) don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that Native Americans don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that non-Christians see American history differently than Christians do.
Hispanics probably fit in here somewhere, though I guess an argument could be made that it wasn't *as* institutional as the rest of the list (not that I agree with that).

So who's left?

Msut77

07-31-2009, 03:35 PM

How is it insane to want to abolish the Fed so we can have a sound monetary policy?

Do you equate "sound monetary policy" with the gold standard?

Also, what is it you want to change about Capitalism?

It isn't so much Capitalism as it is the Sith Capitalism that is being pushed by so many as "free markets".

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 07:09 PM

What does that even mean?

No. I'm just tired of all of you acting like it never happened. Fullmetal said and I quote, "This country was founded on freedom." I brought up examples of how it wasn't a free country. He then brought up examples of things that are bad today (thought police and no fly list) and how they weren't in the past. How can you even compare the enslavement and disenfranchisement of a large segment of the population with a super super small percentage of the country that can't board an airplane?
Both are forms of tyranny.
But now it's not all about that. It's about how this country has changed. That's not what he said. He said it was founded on freedom and I counter that it was founded on free market capitalism. This nation was founded so the money that was made could stay here instead of going across the Atlantic. I suppose you know nothing about the Enlightenment?
What was the Boston Tea Party about? Unfair taxes.
You think there would have been as many people on the American side if it was all about freedom? It was about freedom. We were sick and tired of being ruled by the crown, and we decided to try and create our own country based on the ideas of the great philosophers of the Enlightenment.
You think they would've signed on if there was no mention of taxes? Taxes were a major cause of the American revolution, but not the only one.
What almost made this country fall apart during the Articles of Confederation? Slavery? Noone gave a fuck about some damn dirty Negros. The states couldn't agree on money. Who had the right to print money. What was it worth. Self-centered white men couldn't agree how to split up the pie and we nearly self-destructed because of it. Yup, damn white people. They always fuck everything up. Nevermind that the articles of Confederation gave the Federal government no real power.
You romanticize the past and then, when called out, you say that it's all gone now. Everything is different. It is. We live in a police state for all intents and purposes.
A country founded on freedom should've been free for everyone. I keep hearing how Jefferson and Madison thought slavery should be outlawed but did any of the Founding Fathers give their slaves their freedom? Well, I guess by your logic, we should just forget about all of the advances in civilization over the past 1000s of years. Fuck you Egyptians, you had slaves. Fuck you Greeks and Romans, you're worthless, and contributed nothing because you had slaves. You've got to realize that slavery was a practice that had gone on for thousands of years. After our country was set up, it took about 30 years to ban the salve trade. 90 to emancipate the slaves. However, I guess we shouldn't care what our founding documents say. We shouldn't care that they created the freest civilization to date. I should think the Magna Carta is a piece of shit, because I'm Irish and the British took over our land.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety, and Happiness."
Unfortunately, I guess we can't follow that anymore because some people who wrote it owned slaves.
Come on now, should we really throw this great document out the window because when it was written, it was common for people to own slaves? I suppose we should just forget that the entire history of the world happened, because slavery has existed?
Not one decided to take a personal step for freedom and liberty. They paid it lip service but then proceeded to do what every politician has done since our founding. Please stop saying that they were all about freedom and liberty when their ACTIONS prove the opposite. Words on a paper don't mean shit when you continue to hold slaves.Jefferson was so far in debt he couldn't free his slaves. They would have just gone to the people who he owed his debt to. Before he died, he did free 5 of his slaves, as that was all he could do. He fought against slavery when he was in politics. Madison was also so far in debt, he couldn't free his slaves.
I'm going to test a thesis of mine. What would *YOU*, a defender of capitalism, change about American capitalism? Leave out the parts reasonable people agree on (Goldman is too powerful, business is too entwined in politics, etc.).
I'd like to see the break-up of this monopoly capitalist system that we have today. We have too many huge companies that dominate industry, because they have had regulations passed that make it hard for people to compete against them.
I would like to see the Federal Reserve abolished, and with it the IRS, Federal Income Tax, and the 16th Amendment. Instead of the Federal Reserve Notes, gold and silver would become legal tender. This would force the government to once again live within its means.
I would like to see term limits on Congress, so it would become harder for special interests to gain control of politicians.
I would like to see the end of this legalized bribery that exists in politics.

Fullmetal, I think you'd concede that blacks don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that women don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that Asians (particularly Chinese (though aren't they all Chinese or whatever hardy har har)) don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that Native Americans don't see American history the same way you do for obvious reasons.
I think you'd concede that non-Christians see American history differently than Christians do.
Hispanics probably fit in here somewhere, though I guess an argument could be made that it wasn't *as* institutional as the rest of the list (not that I agree with that).

So who's left?We made some big mistakes in this country. We as humans have also made some big mistakes. It is the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence that can make us free though. If you will read both documents through, you will see that they speak of a great foundation. At the time they were written, there were some major atrocities going on around the world, and in America. Today there are major atrocities going on in the world and America. If we just look past these things, and use the foundation that our Forefathers have given us, we can create a better country than the one we have now. One where everyone is free, everyone is equal and everyone has the unalienable rights that they were born with. That is what the framers of the Constitution wanted.
Do you equate "sound monetary policy" with the gold standard?
No, I equate a sound monetary policy with one where the government can't print unlimited currency.

It isn't so much Capitalism as it is the Sith Capitalism that is being pushed by so many as "free markets".I prefer to call it corporatism, crony capitalism, or monopoly capitalism, but Sith Capitalism works.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 07:19 PM

How is it insane to want to abolish the Fed so we can have a sound monetary policy? Additionally most people who want to abolish the Fed want government responsibility. Also, what is it you want to change about Capitalism?

Your greatest enemy is the collusion of public and private interests. Yet you focus on the former aspect of that as the root problem, and think that unrestrained capitalists will not engage in the same form of unregulated control and oppression in the absence of government control (and collusion)?

That's the most absurd notion I've ever read. Which half of the cigarette gives you cancer?

fullmetalfan720

07-31-2009, 07:25 PM

Your greatest enemy is the collusion of public and private interests. Yet you focus on the former aspect of that as the root problem, and think that unrestrained capitalists will not engage in the same form of unregulated control and oppression in the absence of government control (and collusion)?

That's the most absurd notion I've ever read. Which half of the cigarette gives you cancer?
The difference is Goldman Sachs can't point a gun to your head, and tell you to give them $8,000. The government can. With a large government, corporations can also get regulations passed that make it hard for people to compete against them.

mykevermin

07-31-2009, 07:30 PM

Gtfo.

thrustbucket

07-31-2009, 09:55 PM

fatherofcaitlyn

08-03-2009, 05:29 PM

Any thoughts on this rather offensive picture?

http://bedlammagazine.com/files/images/news/Obama-socialism_0.jpg

mykevermin

08-03-2009, 06:03 PM

a senseless hybrid of unrelated pop culture symbolism and someone who isn't a socialist?

fullmetalfan720

08-03-2009, 06:32 PM

Wrong word, dumb picture.

speedracer

08-04-2009, 07:56 AM

I haven't really seen anyone advocate for 0 regulation around here. Its the international bank's collusion with (read: ownership of ) our government that is the root of the problem. Corrupt mega-corporations are a symptom.
I still never get this question answered. Does anyone really see another rational way for capital to go than to shore up and defend itself in this manner? Isn't it prudent capital to spend to defend one's capital in this way?

In capital-ese, aren't banking cabals good investments?

fullmetalfan720

08-04-2009, 10:25 AM

I still never get this question answered. Does anyone really see another rational way for capital to go than to shore up and defend itself in this manner? Isn't it prudent capital to spend to defend one's capital in this way?

In capital-ese, aren't banking cabals good investments?
Just like gangs are beneficial to society. In real capitalism, and not this bullshit monopoly capitalism we have today, there is no central bank. The idea that a central bank is needed is in the Communist Manifesto. It isn't part of capitalism. It allows complete control over the people. Thomas Jefferson explains it very well:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
That's where we are today.

mykevermin

08-04-2009, 10:39 AM

The idea that a central bank is needed is in the Communist Manifesto. It isn't part of capitalism. It allows complete control over the people.

Pure fallacy. While it is in the communist manifesto, the idea that (1) what we currently have satisfies those conditions Marx set down is false, as is (2) the idea that it's incompatible with Capitalism.

Sorry if it's not your ideal capitalism, but your ideal is a theory that has never existed historically, nor will it ever exist historically. you're the capitalist equivalent of a college-student member of the ISO, who tries to claim communism hasn't worked because it's never been tried properly.

soonersfan60

08-04-2009, 10:48 AM

Just a little balance, Bush from Vanity Fair (July, 2008 http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html )

http://mtblog.vanityfair.com/online/politics/Bush-the-Joker002-copy%5B1%5D.jpg

fatherofcaitlyn

08-04-2009, 10:56 AM

Well, it is offensive. I'll give you that.

fullmetalfan720

08-04-2009, 11:06 AM

Pure fallacy. While it is in the communist manifesto, the idea that (1) what we currently have satisfies those conditions Marx set down is false, as is (2) the idea that it's incompatible with Capitalism.

Sorry if it's not your ideal capitalism, but your ideal is a theory that has never existed historically, nor will it ever exist historically. you're the capitalist equivalent of a college-student member of the ISO, who tries to claim communism hasn't worked because it's never been tried properly.
Well, when we didn't have a Central Bank, from Andrew Jackson's presidency to 1912, money increased its value, and we were the land of opportunity. Now the illegal immigrants are fleeing back to Mexico, our government is trillions in debt, and so are the people, and our dollar is worth less every day.

mykevermin

08-04-2009, 11:19 AM

thrustbucket

08-04-2009, 11:30 AM

The Federal Reserve was the absolute victory and culmination of a cancer that had been growing since about 20 years after independence. There is gobs of evidence of the first leaders of this country fighting centralized bankings extremely veracious efforts to take control. A new budding country with it's own economy is like fresh blood to a the banking vampire. What do you think the whole greenbacks debacle was about with Lincoln?

In other words it's not innacruate to say that there has neary been a decade since the founding of this country that the central banks have not crept in to corrupt. The Federal Reserve is nothing but their ultimate takeover, but certainly not their beginning.

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

fullmetalfan720

08-04-2009, 11:53 AM

You're not a human being, are you.

You're...what were they called?

Ah, the See N' Say!

Pull the string and get one of 8 unique phrases:

"Centralized banks"

"Federal Reserve"

"Socialism"

"Illegal Immigrants"

"Thomas Jefferson"

and so many more!

Really, you confound virtually everything you disagree with into just about every thread you post in so as to show that you're intellectually incapable of separating out your ideas. You just throw all this shit against the wall and hope something sticks.
It all ties together.

Problem of national debt and immigration can be tied to the past 29 years (save for Clinton's last 2) or so. Riddle me this: how old is the Fed? Then why the fuck are you trying to pin all of the world's social ills on one mechanism that predates these problems by nearly three quarters of a fucking century?

"Ron Paul."
When you have a horrible monetary policy, you have many problems. Let's say you are born in 1980. Your dad, when you are born puts aside $1,000 that you will get when you turn 21. Fast forward to 2001. Your $1,000 is worth less than half of what is was in 1980. Another example:
You are born in 1930. You grow up, have a successful career, and along the way save some money for retirement. Unfortunately, by the time you are 65, in 1995, your money has lost much of its value. Now you are living paycheck to paycheck off social security, and barely have enough money. 3-5% inflation every year killed your savings. Why is this the way it is? Its because a private bank, owned by all the major banks in the country has a license to print money based on nothing, when they want. The reason we have such a high national debt in this country, is we borrow money from a bank we allow to print money at interest. If there was no debt there would be no money in circulation. The root problems of this depression are the fact that major corporations own the government.
The reason why I talked about immigration, is because I wanted to illustrate the fact that we used to be the land of opportunity. We would have immigrants from all over the world want to come here. Now the illegal immigrants who came here looking for opportunity are fleeing back to their home country. Also, I don't typically call what is going on today socialism, because it isn't.

fatherofcaitlyn

08-04-2009, 12:27 PM

When you have a horrible monetary policy, you have many problems. Let's say you are born in 1980. Your dad, when you are born puts aside $1,000 that you will get when you turn 21. Fast forward to 2001. Your $1,000 is worth less than half of what is was in 1980. Another example:
You are born in 1930. You grow up, have a successful career, and along the way save some money for retirement. Unfortunately, by the time you are 65, in 1995, your money has lost much of its value. Now you are living paycheck to paycheck off social security, and barely have enough money. 3-5% inflation every year killed your savings. Why is this the way it is? Its because a private bank, owned by all the major banks in the country has a license to print money based on nothing, when they want. The reason we have such a high national debt in this country, is we borrow money from a bank we allow to print money at interest. If there was no debt there would be no money in circulation. The root problems of this depression are the fact that major corporations own the government.
The reason why I talked about immigration, is because I wanted to illustrate the fact that we used to be the land of opportunity. We would have immigrants from all over the world want to come here. Now the illegal immigrants who came here looking for opportunity are fleeing back to their home country. Also, I don't typically call what is going on today socialism, because it isn't.

During the time period of 1930-1995, there would have been a decent return in the stocks, real estate and many businesses. Sticking money into a savings account or CDs has always been a bad idea except for 1929-1945 and 2007-present.