Socialist America Sinking

[quote name='Capitalizt']I have no idea what you are talking about in Ireland. Who the hell cares about Ireland? [/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
Is that not what you wanted? Did they not forward your agenda?
 
socialism20chart1.png


Socialist.

As.

fuck.
 
I saw the author of this book 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.
 
[quote name='speedracer']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
[/QUOTE]

Your chart is beyond outdated myke.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.

[quote name='speedracer']Is that not what you wanted? Did they not forward your agenda?[/QUOTE]

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 "Go get those rich bastards!" attitude, and the 'class warfare' card is undoubtedly an effective tool for politicians.


[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']I saw the author of this book 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.[/QUOTE]

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, and can only legally occur with a government's blessing. They are distinctly anti-capitalist ideas. 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 hybrid that bears no resemblance to the ideal I'm talking about.. The "capitalism" I hear being criticized on these forums is not capitalism at all..It is corporatism and fascism, and believe it or not, I agree entirely with the anger of most of the critics. Their 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 and to the detriment of the common man.. THEY are the ones who deserve the blame, not the special interests themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']
[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='speedracer']Is that not what you wanted? Did they not forward your agenda?[/QUOTE]

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.


[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx'] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='depascal22']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']
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.[/QUOTE]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.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']1. Respect people. 2. Respect their property rights.[/QUOTE]
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the national debt was $10 trillion in 2004. Nor do I think was the budget deficit $2 trillion for 2004.
 
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.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't think the national debt was $10 trillion in 2004. Nor do I think was the budget deficit $2 trillion for 2004.[/QUOTE]

Your revisionist history is appalling.

Like you were upset with Bush's policies in 2004.
 
[quote name='depascal22']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.[/QUOTE]

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).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='depascal22']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='depascal22']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='camoor']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Regardless of how you want to argue how the rich don't pay taxes, this is reality from the federal government (calendar year 2001):
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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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?[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
[quote name='speedracer']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.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='speedracer']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='speedracer']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What does this have to do with capitalism? Yes, we have a choice. We can stop voting for idiot A or idiot B.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
If that's not the perfect description of the modern financial institution, I don't know what is.
 
[quote name='Koggit']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.[/QUOTE]

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 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".
 
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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

This is a great Rolling Stones article 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).
[/QUOTE]
This shit should be made into a movie. Where's Michael Moore?
 
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.
 
[quote name='redline']This shit should be made into a movie. Where's Michael Moore?[/QUOTE]

If he made a movie about that stuff, it would be the first Michael Moore movie I'd be anxious to see.
 
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.
 
Neither party truly wants small business to succeed. Small business don't donate money like Coke, Nike, and all the other super-conglomerations.
 
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...
 
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.
 
[quote name='speedracer']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?[/quote]

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

[quote name='speedracer']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='redline']This shit should be made into a movie. Where's Michael Moore?[/QUOTE]

fuck Michael Moore. Where's someone honest and reputable?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']fuck Michael Moore. Where's someone honest and reputable?[/QUOTE]

You'd have to find someone with no party affiliation for that.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']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?[/quote]

Wait, who is "you guys"?

[quote name='speedracer']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?[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Wait, who is "you guys"?[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Right. Now we get to talk about the lowest common denominator.

Never mind dude. I have no patience for this kind of stupid.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You know. You guys that we just determined are always about cutting taxes and regulation.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='speedracer']Get over yourself douchebag.[/quote]

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?

[quote name='speedracer']Right. Now we get to talk about the lowest common denominator.

Never mind dude. I have no patience for this kind of stupid.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/quote]
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']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.[/quote]

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.

[quote name='speedracer']Indulge me: aside from the two world wars, what are you most proud of in American history?[/quote]

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
Click to expand...

[quote name='speedracer']Ready to be honest? Were the first 5 things you thought of based wholly in liberalism?[/QUOTE]

I don't follow you, "based wholly in liberalism"? What are you asking? Do you mean modern or classical liberalism? Please explain.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
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.[/QUOTE]
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​
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']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​
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']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.[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top