...dopey fucking America with its dopey fucking fairy tales..mumble...grumble..and they let these people work heavy machinery...fuckin..mumble grumble..ehh...
There is more capital accumulation among the top 1% than in any time in your life, your father's life, or your grandfather's life. Where are the jobs? Bullshit is bullshit. You keep repeating the same bullshit - capital accumulation ISN'T leading to jobs here, its leading to jobs in third world countries. Indeed, the lowest rate of unemployment that the country has seen was during the 50s - when the highest tax bracket was 90%. Invest in the people - it works in many other countries. There are many successful 'socialist' (read - mixed economies on the order of Western European democracies) where the GDP is high, old people don't die of simple neglect, and education is more accessible to the populace. And that education is what leads to the high GDP.
No, that's not a "moderate" position. By definition it's the uneducated position. The great political success of the left is that it cultivates and perpetuates the very ignorance that it exploits to destroy America. Congratulations -- the majority is economically ignorant. I know you guys work hard to achieve that, and to keep it that way. You must be very proud. We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic, which presumes that elected officials must account to the people for outcomes, but that the people as a body inherently lack the temperament, discipline and knowledge to craft policy. You can see the problem in this very thread. In your most recent post, even: By holding up whatever policy "the majority" wants as "moderate," you take the position that government serves good intentions. But in fact, government serves outcomes. People don't suffer under intentions -- they suffer under outcomes. And nothing -- and I mean nothing -- beats liberalism for creating miserable outcomes through the application of good intentions. It's definitive, really. Anytime I see someone so wrapped up in a selfless good intention of any sort, regardless of the context, where the consequences and costs are of no import, I know right away I'm looking at a liberal. Liberalism is all about lying to people, telling them that certain policies will give them the outcome they want, when the reality is that liberal leaders want to use the unintended consequences to control the people. Liberals are not satisfied with the "results" of free will, and so they seek to chain it down. The unintended consequences felt by those who suffer under liberalism are fully intended by the liberal elite. Liberalism is driven by people who know that their policies create misery, but who are more concerned with some other aspect of the policy ("social justice," "equality," "fairness," "diversity") than with the absolute freedom or welfare of those upon whom they impose it. And that's a problem, because freedom and welfare are supposed to be constitutional priorities. "Diversity" and "equality" are not. You call yourself a moderate. The hardcore left calls you a useful idiot. I'm more polite about it, but they're basically right: You're a useful idiot; a tool of the left. "Fair" is libspeak. Taxation exists to cover the cost of governing. Using the power of government to commit theft is theft. Even if liberals believe theft is "fair." Because "fair" is not a legal concept, and because theft is a crime. And "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is not "fair." But it is the basis of tax policy which demands that those of ability provide for those in need. That's a tax policy that directly attacks freedom. I disagree with the premise that the richest pay fractions of what the middle class bear. You can put it that way in monetary terms, especially if you count everything of measurable value as "wealth," or if you treat all wealth as interchangeable. But from an absolute quality-of-life standpoint, taking wealth from the richest imposes a cost on the middle class. Taking a $20 million dollar office building from a rich guy doesn't really change his lifestyle much. But it certainly affects all the people who were going to work in his next building -- the one that he now will not buy. The irrefutable fact is that the vast, vast majority of the wealth of the rich is not decadent luxury or personal consumption. Most of it is used to provide jobs to others. (And yes, if the most economical people to employ are foreigners, then that's who should get the job. Foreigners need jobs, too. If you want good wages, learn to do something foreigners can't do. Don't squander your American birthright.) So when you argue that "the rich can afford it," you're really arguing that it should come out of the money the rich use in these other pursuits -- the ones that power the middle class economy. If you "force" the rich to bring jobs back to the US, it will not hurt them personally. But when all the goods cost three times as much and the middle class cannot afford them, then who is bearing the cost of the change: The guy who lives the same lifestyle either way, or the ones who must make due with less because domestic labor is more expensive? That's right -- bringing jobs back to the US hurts the middle class. Using confiscated rich people's money to create domestic jobs comes at a cost to the middle class. Everything else you say is equally naive nonsensical bullshit. I've wasted enough time on you. I think I've said enough here to convince anybody with an open mind that your logic is woefully shortsighted and incomplete.
Don't be fucking idiot. It's simple math. Ever heard of compounding? Anyone can be a millionaire if he starts trying early enough. Anyone who tells you differently is lying, trying to get you to rally behind morally dishonest principles for their own benefit. It's a fucking con, wake up.
Then the intellectually honest conversation to have here is: What can we do to make it profitable to create jobs in America? Don't imagine a false relationship between the two. Who's to say unemployment wouldn't have been even lower with lower marginal rates? The truth is that there were a lot of factors in that -- not the least of which was that back then you couldn't get decent goods made in Asia. But we can still play that game. Live like you're in the 50s. Go ahead, do it. Give up your central air, your color TV. Give up your microwave oven and your clothes dryer. Drive a $3000 car. Move into a thousand-square-foot concrete block home, just like they were building for the middle class in the 50s. Commit to living without the benefits of antibiotics, open heart surgery, kidney transplants or even antacids. Live without Viagra, or even pornography. Put your kids back in Catholic school, and take them to church every week. Because that was life in the fifties. Of course, back then you had to be an accountant to afford all that, or maybe an engineer. But nowadays even the french fry guy at McDonalds can afford that. Even a moron like yourself, Demi. Do all that Demi, and I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find work. And as an added bonus, just about everybody who's richer than you would be paying more taxes than you. You'd be in heaven.
Indeed - and that has nothing to do with keeping taxes on those who have already accumulated vast amounts of capital under the false pretense of reinvesting in America - which isn't happening in the manner which it previously had for the last century. Ergo there's no reason they should enjoy those benefits. That maxim has failed, time to try something different. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_boO_BV8n9ko/SR6-KHI9FWI/AAAAAAAABOw/cGMUalsO2Hg/s1600-h/Capture.JPG Yes. However, those 90% rates didn't destroy job creation, indeed that was the lowest level we've had in the last 100 years. The argument that you'd destroy job creation by robbing the rich of capital was simply not true. False analogy - which is all you are really capable of. The argument that high tax rates lead to high unemployment is without a doubt false. There are far too many other factors, it is anything but the dominant factor in that equation. Without that excuse, there's no reason whatsoever to allow the massive loopholes in the tax code that are exploited on an ever greater basis by an army of thieves - also known as accountants, lawyers and spin doctors that feed us this drivel every day of our lives. Because they know some people aren't smart enough to see through their lies. Right, rick?
Yeah, all those uneducated types. Like the economists at Moodys: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html Or, from that article, the head of the CBO, who testified to Congress that tax cuts to the middle class and lower class would actually propagate more spending in the economy than doing so for the wealthy: “Policies that temporarily increased the after-tax income of people who are relatively well off would probably have little effect on their spending because they generally would be able finance their consumption out of their income or assets without such a change,” CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress on Feb. 23. On the other hand, tax relief for families with “lower income, few assets and poor credit would probably” spur spending, he said. Elmendorf said because of job losses and a drop in assets over the past two years more families “probably fit that description now.” Uneducated my ass. We are both a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy. What we aren't is a direct democracy. However, that doesn't mean we aren't a democracy. Regardless, irrelevant to my position, which is that you don't get to define the terms of the discussion by making such preposterous claims that closing loopholes exploited by the wealthy is in someway a radical position. It isn't, it's a centrist position favored by the majority. And that majority certainly includes numerous and extensive numbers of economists. This does not follow by any way, shape or mean. Indeed, the current position of the government as a whole isn't to close the loopholes. Meaningless rhetoric - and just as meaningless when it comes from the other side. Intent matters, but not nearly as much as execution, and many 'liberal' policies have definitely improved the quality of life for the people living in this country. Claiming an absolute mandate on the truth is sheer demagoguery. It sways the ignorant and idiotic, but the smart people simply shake their heads. The truth is conservatives are right about some things, and liberals are right about some things, and the specifics of these often depend largely on context. You have the dogmatic approach of the fanatic. And for that you can justify anything - and have.
It defies comprehension because it's not fucking true. It's just another dishonest little strawman to fuel your smugness. The truth that you're doggedly refusing to acknowledge, is that some people see a deficit and think "Gee, maybe it's time to make some serious cuts in spending." rather than "Raise taxes! Rack up some more debt! Send the bill to someone else! Whee! "
I can't let the Bill Gates references go without comment. Gates did not invent DOS, nor did he invent Windows. DOS was purchased from someone (forgot the name and don't feel like looking it up) and Windows was copied from work done by Xerox at their PARC facility in the 70s. Apple's GUI was also copied from Xerox, btw. Gates' only real skill is marketing. At the dawn of the PC age, he came up with a better business model than did Steve Jobs. Taxation is not theft. Taxation without representation is theft. When people come together in a "society" and decide that they need "government," taxes are an inevitable consequence because the primary function of the government is to do the things collectively that individuals cannot do for themselves (regulate trade, common defense, like that) and those things must be paid for. A responsible government uses its resources to do its authorized functions and does not "spend more than it has" except and unless there's some sort of unforeseen emergency. Most of the western world has abandoned this model and elected governments now consist of legislators who use public funds (taxes) to buy votes by providing benefits - or at least promising not to take away benefits. The model is unsustainable because people of lesser means have an insatiable appetite for Free Shit Someone Else Pays For. Look at Greece. Shut up, Rick, I know what you'll say in response to that and you're dead wrong. There are ways to fix this, but they're hard and unpopular with those receiving the benefits. 1 - Money must be removed from the election process. In practice this would mean public funding of elections and ironclad spending limits. 2 - Legislators and executives must have term limits. It's not a lifetime invitation to feed at the public trough, it's a call to do the nation's business in a responsible manner. 3 - Taxes must be rational. For an income-tax based model, that probably means a flat tax of some kind with severely limited deductions. For other forms of taxes (sales or consumption tax, value-added tax, tariffs, etc) there are also responsible, rational ways to do it. In general, simpler is better, leads to greater compliance, and means more revenue collected. 4 - Government must be prohibited from spending more than it has as a general rule. There would be exceptions for national emergencies, of course, but as a routine it should live within its means, just like its citizens must. 5 - Education of the public is absolutely crucial. Lazy, disinterested, uninformed voters lead to very poor governance. I'd even go so far as to say that voting should not be an automatic right, but be means-tested - you'd have to demonstrate some basic understanding of how economies function, what government is actually authorized to do, and stuff like that in order to get a voting card. "Gimme my gub'mint check" is not an informed voter.
Taxation isn't a crime, even if it's absolute. There's not a single impediment to congress' ability to tax in the Constitution. So it isn't a crime by definition. You are arguing it isn't "fair." Brilliant, sherlock. The two richest individuals in the United States disagree with you. But they are 'traitors' and liars. Damn them and their class warfare! On the top 5%, their share of wealth has gone up 57% in the last decade. Their share of taxes? 4%. Which only works if he is buying in the US, otherwise it's just a transfer of wealth to a 3rd world country because he was given a tax break in order to accumulate the wealth needed in the first place. And of course we either run a massive deficit to cover said costs, or put more of the burden on the middle class - who then buy less things in the US because they no longer have discretionary income to spend on consumer goods. We don't need to advantage foreign economies to enrich a small few through a determined policy to outsource our middle class' wealth to other nations. Using the US tax code to help create jobs in other countries is INSANE. Doing so when we are running trillions of dollars of deficits is even more so.
Public records say otherwise. No fucking shit! What do you think we're bitching about? Why don't they do those things, then?[/quote] Obviously, there is some other problem. Perhaps, and ... I'm just throwing this out there ..., perhaps we ought to find out why and address the disease and not the symptom. Why should ANYONE be forced to pay for it? Why is one group of citizens entitled to live at the expense of others?[/quote] You tell me. You're the one advocating for "the rich" to get by while the rest of us are breaking our backs to pay their bills.
It's no more uniquely "their" bill than it is mine, and I refuse to pretend that the option of reducing or eliminating that "bill" doesn't exist. If we can't pay our bills without continually ratcheting up "progressive" taxation and running an insane deficit, we need to spend less, cut programs, eliminate agencies.
I agree completely. The only arguemnt you'll get from me on that count is if you wish to abolish all social programs, but keep the pork and the subsidiaries for corporate farms and tax cuts for those who don't need it.
It's cute to see Anc echo-chambering Demi like that, especially when Demi starts shouting just like Anc does.
Yeah, you'll argue that he's kidding, and yet your side never has anything substantive to say in defense of your position. cpurick's at least giving it a shot, but all he's doing is parroting something somebody else said somewhere. How's about you stop sniping for a moment and explain how your own version of the Reagan Golden Shower is supposed to work?
Bill Gates was at least a reasonably competent programmer. He may not have created the programs that made him insanely wealthy, but he started out selling software he wrote. Your "hard and unpopular fix" is also pretty fucking unAmerican. Telling people how they can and cannot spend money? Telling people they can't have the elected officials they want? Telling people they have to pass a test to vote? You'd basically kill America to save it. There's the rub. ************** I'm as serious as a heart attack about being wealthy. I started investing when I was born, but I got into it in earnest when I was old enough to make my own decisions. I was well on my way to having enough to retire on when I needed to cash out a large chunk of it to buy a house. In spite of this, I still have a decent chunk of change invested. And I own my house and car free and clear and have no credit card debt. This is in spite of a terrible economy that has led to a couple big financial setbacks. And if I was allowed to keep the money that has been taken from me to go into the Social Security scheme, I'd probably have a portfolio that was generating enough income to retire today. And that is without the portion chipped in my my employers. I've also made a couple prudent real estate purchases. One of which has already paid off very nicely and my current one will as well if we can just get a government in office that will let the economy recover.
Yes, Microbrain, really. I had an aunt that worked for General Mills. When I was born, she bought me one share of General Mills stock. They later spun off their Red Lobster restaurant chain (which later added Olive Garden and a couple other chains), giving me shares in Darden Restaurants. They also spun off Kenner Toys (known for the "Star Wars" line) but I was too young when this happened and my aunt sold those shares for me instead of holding them. When the stock market took a huge shit in 1987 I had anxieties and considered selling off the shares (which had appreciated quite a bit since then). But I held my course and the market, which was below 2,000 then, is now over 11,000 (and that's during bad economic times). As soon as General Mills offered it I got a DRIP (That's a Dividend Reinvestment Plan. Calm down Zombie and Muad.) so that instead of getting a quarterly check I'd buy fractional shares of stock with my dividend. Eventually it got to where I was actually getting multiple shares of stock every quarter. So there you have it. That one share that was worth around $10 IIRC when I was born is now approaching 300 shares that are worth around $37 each. Yes, I also cut a check from time to time to buy more shares, but most of that wealth appreciation came without any effort on my part--just by leaving my money alone to do work for me. It's just that easy.
I'm aware of all those details and they do nothing to diminish Gates' importance or influence. Gates *did* buy much of the code that became MS-DOS, but it was also heavily modified by Microsoft to meet IBM's requirements. And Gates was the one who had the foresight to seize the opportunity with IBM. To say "it's just marketing" is to overlook that the goal in marketing is persuasion, and to persuade a company like IBM to base their product on software from a small start-up is a pretty damned good job of persuasion. Yes, if it had not been Gates who essentially standardized the PC world it may well have been someone else. (Gary Kildall almost had a deal for CP/M, for instance.) But the fact remains: others may have had similar ideas, but Gates (and co.) actually brought them to fruition. And for that, they deserve the wealth they've acquired.
Heh. Microbrain. I just made it to the episode of Breaking Bad where John DeLancie shows up as cute landlady chick's dad.
What is not speculation: Bill Gates actually did it. That someone else could have or might have is speculation. I believe whole-heartedly that Bill Gates deserves every penny he got from his business. The fact that he earned it lawfully and in a competitive market only underline my belief. I think I see where you're going... I think we agree...I believe you're saying that "deserve" is irrelevent. He has it, and that he has it is consistent with a free society. And I agree. But I also believe that his wealth is a sign of how big a contribution he made to the needs of society, and, on that score, his wealth is deserved. So do I. The U.S. has 200 years of history that proves it. I suspect so. However, that is NOT the case here. We are not a society of Bill Gates' and beggars. We have a large, comfortable, very prosperous middle class in between. Law and order is important. But if the law does not protect freely acquired property, the law is useless. I agree it's a problem. But a solution that argues that everyone else should therefore be held back is simply not acceptable. A government (I won't say society because the two should not be conflated) that looks at me and judges me cognitively "gifted" and decides therefore that I should be subject to special constraint because someone else is not is denying me what I define as the purpose of my existence: to see what I can make of myself. Any government that does so, is not legitimate in my eyes. The massive redistribution that already happens does little to alleviate the problem and, in fact, carries unintended consequences that may even be worse. We have public educaiton in this country because, theoretically, no child should go uneducated because of poverty. The consequence, though, is that public education is doing a HORRIBLE job. In exchange for "leaving no child behind," everyone else is diminished. I'll strongly argue that, in a free society, parents should be able to opt out of the public system, recoup the tax dollars associated with their child (why should the cost be paid twice?), and choose private education. If we have a society that promotes envy, we will have stolen cars. If we have a society that promotes self-reliance and respect for the law, we will not. We are rapidly building the former and destroying the latter. A person who does not have to work himself is (likely) never going to respect the work of others, or the fruit thereof. More redistribution of wealth is simply going to further remove many people further away from work and self-reliance, and make the problem worse. We don't need more redistribution of wealth. We need vastly less. That's why I favor a flat tax. Everyone gives X percent of what they make. No more social engineering, class warfare bullshit. No more talk of "fair shares." Everyone pays EXACTLY the same size percentage. The rich would still pay vastly more, but they'd only pay in tribute to the state for each dollar what a middle class person would pay.
You used to be smarter than that. See if you can follow this: Volpone is not wealthy now. He believes he will be wealthy someday. Unless he's a tax cheat, he's paying a greater percentage of his income in taxes than the guy he hopes to be someday. He's rationalizing why he's willing to do that by saying he hopes to be wealthy someday (and, by implication, some other middle-class slob will pick up the slack for him). Next week he'll be blaming his tax burden on welfare recipients. Rinse, repeat. If there's anything there you don't understand, I'll be happy to use pictures.
