Tea Party

[russell jones]

[freakeenyc]

Glenn Becks Tea Party rally is to be in the same location and anniversary of MLKjr's "I Have a Dream" speech. They say its unintentional and i believe em..just thought it was funny.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/27/glenn.beck.rally/index.html?hpt=Sbin

[freakeenyc]

lol^

 

who watched this shit today?

is glen beck running for president?

[angelofdeath]

thankfully i missed it.

while it was framed as part of the 'tea party' movement, it seems this march was comprised of 100% neo cons. not surprising

 

and i couldnt figure out why he used the lincoln memorial.... why would he use a memorial to this tyrant? he arrested and held without habeus corpus some 20K northern political dissenters, held elections at bayonet point, shut down 300 northern newspapers, arrested the police chief and mayor of baltimore with out cause, deported a sitting US senator because he spoke against lincoln, instituted conscription, inflated the money supply, instituted the first income tax, was responsible for a war that killed 650K people and 50K CIVILIANS and is documented to of 'chuckled' when hearing of shermans atrocities against southern blacks and whites. then it dawned on me... that is exactly what the neocons cheer! lincoln made bush look like a child.

[stopdeletingmyaccountoner]

that's total war...

[boratderkaghad]

so whats up with the tea bagger who does nazi renactments so he can bond with his son or the witch from maryland or the bitch who's man runs wwe saw her kick a dude in the nuts or the guy who hates fags but his kid ran a gay bar like the gayest one in buffalo and then there's dick and how he treated his gay kid or that butthole ron ohnson from wisconsin who belives in sunspots affecting the weater but not in gore's belives in weather change how can you be for one type of scientific predictions but not the other and sice when do republicans belive in science or the fighting goin on between the tea bagger and the republican down in nevada and now arnold pretty much leagalized it so obama might do that after 2012 we can all hope so oh yeah lincon was forced to free slaves and the republicans need to stop rideing that shit it like hearing a brows fan talk about how they used to be great they need to get a qb who can play grow up it's 2010

[fastZeetec302]

nice huge sentence br0. very informative....

[CALIgula]

F UR T Party!

[TheoHuxtable..]

[wearekilluminati]

palin obama and bush are cousins...bet cha didnt know that one....oh and bratt pitt and that bitch monroe too...........

[she's crafty]

its easier to call him a marxist or hitler cuz you cant call him a nigger even though thats what there thinking its all about i mean did they sit there and call bill a nazi when he was president or gore a nazi when he was running 'no' do you think they would call hilary a commie if she was pres no they would be calling her a bitch instead its all about bait and switch you have a party thats been know for keeping down the people blocking civil rights and human rights as well i mean do you think cheney gives a fuck i dont know you tell me and ron paul called bruno a fag sure the dems have got there problems too but fuck the republicans is like a sinking ship foley,that guy who had that bitch in south america,rumsfeld,kathren harris,and my girl whos nailin palin so the republicans need to get there shit together before they go after the big guy or else wait what am i thinking the republican party is dead well at least for the next 8 years or so r.i.p you white fucks

 

 

your an ignorant moron, and no not for your 2 mile long run on sentence. :lol:

[the.crooked]

sooooo... thoughts on the tea party dude who tried to stomp out a moveon.org activist?

 

good look guys. wear the misogyny and tyranny with pride.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Don't know exactly who you are referring too, but the Tea Party has been hijacked and really no longer represents what the original concept and ideal's the Tea Party actually stood for. I mean, Palin some how is now in the "Tea Party". F'real?

[wearekilluminati]

Don't know exactly who you are referring too, but the Tea Party has been hijacked and really no longer represents what the original concept and ideal's the Tea Party actually stood for. I mean, Palin some how is now in the "Tea Party". F'real?

 

bigg upps...true....................

[once upon a crime]

against the tyrannical american government over stepping there bounds constantly?.... then im in.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Can any of you Conservatives/Libertarians debate this:

 

 

The fact that trickle-down economics/Reaganomics don't work and how the US is becoming a banana republic - at a point where essentially the top 1% possesses more wealth than the bottom 90%. The gap between rich and poor has expanded to levels not seen since the time just before the Great Depression.

 

The gap between rich and poor was at its smallest in the 1950's - when taxes were the highest for the richest Americans (between 70-90% rate, as opposed to the 35% rate today). This was during the years when anyone with a high school diploma could get a job, own a house, and support a family (even if only one person was working).

[delaford321]

I think your last paragraph is crucial. Now, many with four year college degrees can't get a job, and most households can't own that house and support a family without two incomes. Why? Because our standards have inflated to the point where the ranch houses and public schools we grew up in are not enough. In order to "give your kids opportunity" (code for make it so THEY can live outside normal means) things like country club memberships, private schooling, etc have become the de facto "standard". Noone can really afford it, but its what's expected. At least in my social circles.

[angelofdeath]

the young turks. there is not another idiot in the planet that can compare with this guy. i mean, having an actual conversation with this line of argument is akin to arguing with keith olbermann.

 

i know we dont agree politically theo, but cmon, this guy is the biggest hack i have ever seen. you are smarter than this.

then again, you use the same rhetoric.

[wearekilluminati]

I think your last paragraph is crucial. Now, many with four year college degrees can't get a job, and most households can't own that house and support a family without two incomes. Why? Because our standards have inflated to the point where the ranch houses and public schools we grew up in are not enough. In order to "give your kids opportunity" (code for make it so THEY can live outside normal means) things like country club memberships, private schooling, etc have become the de facto "standard". Noone can really afford it, but its what's expected. At least in my social circles.

 

 

 

its called social gentrification.

[TheoHuxtable..]

the young turks. there is not another idiot in the planet that can compare with this guy. i mean, having an actual conversation with this line of argument is akin to arguing with keith olbermann.

 

i know we dont agree politically theo, but cmon, this guy is the biggest hack i have ever seen. you are smarter than this.

then again, you use the same rhetoric.

 

 

What makes him an idiot? I haven't seen one Conservative disprove him. Instead of calling him an idiot show where he's wrong.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Conservatives/Libertarians want America to look like Somalia.

 

Somalia has:

 

Small central government with little control

Low to non-existent taxes

More power in local regions/states, by local warlords

No separation between religion & state

Everyone armed and owns guns

The few wealthy elite controlling & running everything

[angelofdeath]

every thing the guy says makes him an idiot. i havent heard anything but keith olbermann partisan bickering nonsense ever come out of the guys mouth.

 

what do you want me to 'disprove?'

do rich people exist? yes.

are rich people rich at the expense of others? only in the case of govt connected rich people.

 

if the guy wants to talk about the 'income gap' you are only telling half the story and pointing to simple coincidental evidence of taxes being higher. i could just as easily say the regulations were just a fraction of what they are now. the 90% rate in the 50's was on income over 400K. that is over 3.3 million in todays money. and probably realistically higher if you count total inflation and not just a govt computed CPI which leaves out various key sectors of the economy. when young turk guy starts talking about how almost to the penny, statistically, the male breadwinners tax bill equals the pay check of the wife and mother of his kids, i'll begin to take his notions seriously. when he starts talking about the federal reserve debasing the currency 96-97% of its original pre 1913 value, i'll take him seriously.

 

when he starts talking about what the 'rich' have done for the standard of living of all americans, then i'll take him seriously. when henry ford and then others up till today made it possible that today the 'poor' in america can have one or two cars in the drive way, they made profits doing so. and look who benefitted from this. everyone can afford a car. the 'poor' have air conditioning, multiple cars, cell phones, flat screens, computers (thanks to billionaire bill gates and steve jobs through competition have made computers cheap that everyone can afford them) ipods, 100$ jeans and they throw away more food than they consume! and we are sit here and listen to this nonsense about an 'income gap' and how the wealthy are exploiting the poor? we must not live on the same planet.

 

when the guy starts talking about the government policies that created the decline of the american dream, i'll take him seriously.

 

if 'conservatives/libertarians (as if they are the same thing, conservatives are just as statist as the you, theo, you should like them) want america to be like somalia... then obviously you want america to be like the USSR, nazi or stasi occupied east germany, or maoist china.

 

big central government to run everyones life, wage class warfare against the rich, regulate evil business and spread egalitarianism at all costs

 

high taxation to full government confiscation of wealth

 

more power to the central government ala adolf hitler, stalin, mao, and other great utopianists

 

(i cant even address your silly turk like comment about religion, are you really that ignorant to think that a LIBERTARIAN wants a state run govt monopolized religion being foisted on everyone?)

 

only the govt having guns, no jews, kulaks, or other peons. no self defense against being foisted on the boxcars or in the gulags.

 

the 'people' owning and controlling everything.

 

look you are almost there now, you have MAObama in the white house!

[TheoHuxtable..]

every thing the guy says makes him an idiot. i havent heard anything but keith olbermann partisan bickering nonsense ever come out of the guys mouth.

 

what do you want me to 'disprove?'

do rich people exist? yes.

are rich people rich at the expense of others? only in the case of govt connected rich people.

 

Well if you call him an "idiot" then that means you believe him to be wrong on a number of issues. You can't call someone an idiot if you agree with everything they've said. So disprove everything he's "wrong" on.

 

if the guy wants to talk about the 'income gap' you are only telling half the story and pointing to simple coincidental evidence of taxes being higher.

 

You call it coincidental, but the problem is that your Conservative philosophical argument is that "low taxes on the rich creates jobs, grows the economy, grows the middle class, etc." - and that higher taxes on the rich weakens the economy and causes unemployment to rise. If this is the case then unemployment in the 1950's should have been very high and the economic situation should have been dire. Instead, the 1950's saw the greatest expansion of the Middle Class in history, along with the the smallest gap of wealth between rich and poor in the 20th century, if not US history, and possibly world history.

 

If the argument by Conservatives is that World War 2 is the reason for 1950's economic growth (I know Casek has made this argument), then that still sides against Conservative ideology since WW2 consisted of GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Government spending is a method of economic stimulus, that Conservatives routinely argue against. This happened with the New Deal, this happened with World War 2.

 

Another "coincidence", is that Bush cut taxes for the rich to the lowest point in history, deregulated the housing industry and the banks - and the economy plummeted in his final years. I will admit however that Clinton was part of the problem in 1999 with his bi-partisan bill with the Republicans that deregulated Wall Street. But that was a typical Conservative bill.

 

If your Conservative philosophy is so sound, why should a "coincidence" even exist?

 

One argument Cenk is making is that in the 1950's, instead of relying on the rich to "create jobs" on their own, the government actually used that money to directly create jobs and build the economy. There was no hoping and waiting that jobs would be created. The fact is, many of the rich use tax cuts to put more money in the stock market, buy an extra Bentley, buy an extra home, etc.

 

 

 

 

i could just as easily say the regulations were just a fraction of what they are now. the 90% rate in the 50's was on income over 400K. that is over 3.3 million in todays money. and probably realistically higher if you count total inflation and not just a govt computed CPI which leaves out various key sectors of the economy. when young turk guy starts talking about how almost to the penny, statistically, the male breadwinners tax bill equals the pay check of the wife and mother of his kids, i'll begin to take his notions seriously. when he starts talking about the federal reserve debasing the currency 96-97% of its original pre 1913 value, i'll take him seriously.

 

when he starts talking about what the 'rich' have done for the standard of living of all americans, then i'll take him seriously. when henry ford and then others up till today made it possible that today the 'poor' in america can have one or two cars in the drive way, they made profits doing so. and look who benefitted from this. everyone can afford a car. the 'poor' have air conditioning, multiple cars, cell phones, flat screens, computers (thanks to billionaire bill gates and steve jobs through competition have made computers cheap that everyone can afford them) ipods, 100$ jeans and they throw away more food than they consume! and we are sit here and listen to this nonsense about an 'income gap' and how the wealthy are exploiting the poor? we must not live on the same planet.

 

What "poor" are you talking about? The poor people in my city take public transportation. Cellphones, computers, and flat screens are affordable to many because of the nature of technology and how it goes down in cost over the years as manufacturing evolves in more cost-efficient ways. In 80's & 90's, desktop computers cost several thousand dollars. Today you can get them for like $600, with far greater processing power, hard drive space, etc. Cellphones and their service plans cost way more in the 1980's than they do now. Even flat screens - I bought my HDTV just a couple years ago and it was more expensive than the newer & better models today.

 

 

when the guy starts talking about the government policies that created the decline of the american dream, i'll take him seriously.

 

if 'conservatives/libertarians (as if they are the same thing, conservatives are just as statist as the you, theo, you should like them)

 

I lump them together because they share many of the same ideologies. Low taxes for the rich, everyone being armed, small government, etc.

 

want america to be like somalia... then obviously you want america to be like the USSR, nazi or stasi occupied east germany, or maoist china.

 

big central government to run everyones life, wage class warfare against the rich, regulate evil business and spread egalitarianism at all costs

 

high taxation to full government confiscation of wealth

 

more power to the central government ala adolf hitler, stalin, mao, and other great utopianists

 

(i cant even address your silly turk like comment about religion, are you really that ignorant to think that a LIBERTARIAN wants a state run govt monopolized religion being foisted on everyone?)

 

only the govt having guns, no jews, kulaks, or other peons. no self defense against being foisted on the boxcars or in the gulags.

 

the 'people' owning and controlling everything.

 

look you are almost there now, you have MAObama in the white house!

 

Here's where you're wrong. The USSR, the Nazis, and Maoist China go against Liberal principles.

 

For one, the Nazis were socially far-right in their ideology. Liberals believe in tolerance and acceptance - the Nazis were anti-minority groups and xenophobic, and highly nationalistic and ethnocentric - just like today's Conservatives.

 

Liberals never argued for "full government confiscation of wealth", but rather a comprehensive system that prevents "the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer". Less regulation and lower & lower taxes for the rich creates this.

 

Never wanted Hitler-like control of government - for one we believe in elected officials not dictators, that are held accountable by the people.

 

"The people should own and control everything" - how can you contradict yourself after just accusing us of wanting the government to control everything. What I think the people should control more is who our elected officials are and what they do, not corporate interests and their lobbyists (who mainly support right-wing Republicans and a few blue dog Democrats).

 

A certain segment of the Conservative movement do want Christianity and the government aligned.

 

You want full economic anarchy with no regulation and no taxes with an enormous deficit as a result, while corporations do as they please.

 

"The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class

is in control and outnumbers both of the other classes." -Aristotle

[angelofdeath]

You call it coincidental, but the problem is that your Conservative philosophical argument is that "low taxes on the rich creates jobs, grows the economy, grows the middle class, etc." - and that higher taxes on the rich weakens the economy and causes unemployment to rise. If this is the case then unemployment in the 1950's should have been very high and the economic situation should have been dire. Instead, the 1950's saw the greatest expansion of the Middle Class in history, along with the the smallest gap of wealth between rich and poor in the 20th century, if not US history, and possibly world history.

 

 

i think these examples this guy and other people, including economists and commentators cook up that they are directly related to or cause certain things is funny.

 

what would you think if someone came out and said....'the middle class was richer in the 1950's and guess what? there was jim crow laws! coincidence? i think not!'

 

you are limiting, just like this turk guy, to a very narrow point and ignoring all other factors.

in order to understand economics you cant just look at one group over a short period of time, you have to look at all groups over long periods of time to properly assess the situation. you only want to focus on taxes as a cause of prosperity for the middle class, you ignore EVERYTHING else. what if taxes were slightly higher but the money was sounder, the economy was more free, less regulation, no welfare state therefore a higher work ethic, and the list goes on forever.

 

by extension if you really believe that 'higher' taxes lead to prosperity, then obviously lets take it to its logical conclusion. i propose that i steal all of your income. you will now be much better off, correct? it only leads to reason that if 'higher' taxes are 'better' than 100% taxes must be the best, correct?

 

you are also ignoring economic reality and basic theory by narrowly focusing on tax rates. tax rates matter little to the 'rich' compared to small business owner. by raising taxes, including and up to 100% rates which by your logic would be optimal and lead to the prosperity that no one else has ever known, you hurt the small business owner the most. do you know the start up costs and taxes on small businesses? do you have any experience in this area at all? who benefits from a regulation that says in order to sell 1 pound of cheese to your next door neighbor you need to have a 100K USDA food processing facility, the home kitchen cheese maker or kraft factory?

 

the basic economics lesson you ignore is that we must all look at all groups over a period of time. you can also not see what govt intrusion retards or prohibits. you cannot calculate how many kitchen artisan cheese producers are discouraged by these regulations and 50% corporate tax rates on all profits. this is the unintended consequences that cannot be shown on your stats.

 

you ignore the welfare issue in the unemployment issue completely. this leads to a distorted view and conclusion.

 

 

If the argument by Conservatives is that World War 2 is the reason for 1950's economic growth (I know Casek has made this argument), then that still sides against Conservative ideology since WW2 consisted of GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Government spending is a method of economic stimulus, that Conservatives routinely argue against. This happened with the New Deal, this happened with World War 2.

 

it is a myth that the war brought us out of the depression.

the depression was not ended until we had free markets after the war.

some people make the case that the economy would boom if we were in never ending war. both sides of the aisle like this idea. it is nothing but the broken window fallacy.

the war didnt cure unemployment. this is a distortion your fabulous stats show is true, but think about it. if you conscript millions of men into the armed forces, and half of them get killed, i guess you could say we 'fixed' unemployment. but this is nothing but the broken window fallacy on different terrain.

 

Another "coincidence", is that Bush cut taxes for the rich to the lowest point in history, deregulated the housing industry and the banks - and the economy plummeted in his final years. I will admit however that Clinton was part of the problem in 1999 with his bi-partisan bill with the Republicans that deregulated Wall Street. But that was a typical Conservative bill.

 

what ''deregulation???" this is another myth.

 

the government regulatory sector GREW during this time.

the government promoted this boom and the fed financed it with cheap non market interest rates. a bubble ensued. govt regulations and incentives created a situation that forced banks to make risky loans. and moral hazard was in place due to the federal regulatory apparatus that lead banks to make risky loans knowing they would be bailed out. they were.

 

its hilarious to say they 'deregulated' wall street.

the person that believes wall street was 'deregulated' (as if we had laissez faire, we had market fascism just like we always had and the government forced the market actors to take on risky loans under penalty of law) is also the person that believes that if the govt doesnt increase spending the next budget year, there was a 'cut.'

 

 

If your Conservative philosophy is so sound, why should a "coincidence" even exist?

 

i know your are not this dumb.

what if i made the statement that...'during the 1850's blacks committed no crime, so because we they committed no crimes in slavery, we need slavery again.' coincidence?'

 

just insert taxation for slavery and change some words around to say...'look, american middle class workers were better off, so lets just steal more of their money?'

 

what the common denominator is between the two examples is violations of rights. chattel slavery and taxation. both are forms of slavery. how dare you or the govt decide that you have a right to somethe i produced. and then you get to make posts about idiotic talk show hosts towing keith olbermann party lines and using rachel maddow rhetoric that you need to start stealing MORE of other peoples money.

what if the murder rate was lower because guys named theo huxtable are in jail? should we just throw you in jail?

 

and what 'conservative' philosphy? since when do 'conservatives' espouse austrian economics?

 

One argument Cenk is making is that in the 1950's, instead of relying on the rich to "create jobs" on their own, the government actually used that money to directly create jobs and build the economy.

 

we dont need jobs, we need productivity. govt jobs are make work jobs. govts have no wealth. they can only steal it from citizens, borrow it or print it out of thin air. you have to steal money from the productive people to pay people to dig ditches, repave the same road 10 times, and dig holes and fill them in. this is not productivity, this is meaningless jobs for the sake of jobs. no one is getting richer off of this. the standard of living isnt rising. this is the broken window fallacy yet again.

according to your logic, we could solve the unemployment problem not with freeing up the economy to let it grow and allow productive jobs to come about, we could just junk all tractor trailers and put a 50lb sack on everyones back and make them start carrying the load. now how would everyones living standard be if this were to happen? well, we would all jobs, but we would actually be poorer.

 

What "poor" are you talking about? The poor people in my city take public transportation. Cellphones, computers, and flat screens are affordable to many because of the nature of technology and how it goes down in cost over the years as manufacturing evolves in more cost-efficient ways. In 80's & 90's, desktop computers cost several thousand dollars. Today you can get them for like $600, with far greater processing power, hard drive space, etc. Cellphones and their service plans cost way more in the 1980's than they do now. Even flat screens - I bought my HDTV just a couple years ago and it was more expensive than the newer & better models today.

 

exactly. who is producing these cheap computers? multi billionaire bill gates!

by the fact that he is rich, he by definition has pleased his customers, made a handsome profit and has made things affordable for everyone!

yet, you ignore this completely and just say...'the middle class is poorer, we need more taxes!'

the middle class didnt have 2-3 cars in the 1950's. the middle class didnt have air conditioning in the 1950's. the market, and rich entrepreneurs created these products and through innovation and competition the prices dropped dramatically. it is silly to say we are 'poorer' today than in the 50's. the poor today live better than any king or caesar in history. the rich guy might have a mercedes, but the poor person has a honda. there is a big difference between this and years past when the poor had to walk and the king had a coach.

 

 

Here's where you're wrong. The USSR, the Nazis, and Maoist China go against Liberal principles.

 

this is laughable.

 

 

"The people should own and control everything" - how can you contradict yourself after just accusing us of wanting the government to control everything. What I think the people should control more is who our elected officials are and what they do, not corporate interests and their lobbyists (who mainly support right-wing Republicans and a few blue dog Democrats).

 

the 'people' meaning the government holds in for the people. just like in the USSR.

'people' should of been in ' ' 's.

 

A certain segment of the Conservative movement do want Christianity and the government aligned.

 

some conservatives may want religion in government but these conservatives do not want a free market, do not want everyone to have guns, dont want any of the silliness you are trying to make a silly picture of the libertarian ideology being equivalent to somalia.

libertarians do not want religion in govt.

 

 

 

 

i cant believe i just wrote all that in response to keith olbermann/turks guy/rachel maddow.

 

do you really believe this stuff you write or do you just do it to have fun? its sort of laughable that people actually believe this nonsense and present it in the same rhetoric as an olbermann.

imagine if i got my economic talking points from bill oreilly... i would sound just as silly as you

[TheoHuxtable..]

i think these examples this guy and other people, including economists and commentators cook up that they are directly related to or cause certain things is funny.

 

what would you think if someone came out and said....'the middle class was richer in the 1950's and guess what? there was jim crow laws! coincidence? i think not!'

 

That's a stupid comparison, because the Conservative economic philosophy doesn't directly address anything about "Jim Crow Laws" and thus is not relevant. Conservative economic philosophy DOES claim that higher taxes on the rich combined with more government spending hurts the economy. There was more government spending & higher taxes during the 1950's yet the 1950's was an era of economic boom.

 

Making a claim about "Jim Crow Laws" existing makes about as much sense as claiming that more black & white TV's were in households in the 50's than they are today, and so black & white TV's are better for the economy. There is no relevance.

 

 

Another "coincidence" I forgot to mention, is that taxes were higher for the richest under Clinton than under Bush, and the economy was more prosperous in the 1990's. Clinton also cut defense spending drastically and closed a whole lot of unnecessary Cold War era bases, which built up a budget surplus. Again, cutting defense spending is another Liberal principle that most Conservatives argue against.

 

 

 

you are limiting, just like this turk guy, to a very narrow point and ignoring all other factors.

in order to understand economics you cant just look at one group over a short period of time, you have to look at all groups over long periods of time to properly assess the situation. you only want to focus on taxes as a cause of prosperity for the middle class, you ignore EVERYTHING else. what if taxes were slightly higher but the money was sounder, the economy was more free, less regulation, no welfare state therefore a higher work ethic, and the list goes on forever.

 

by extension if you really believe that 'higher' taxes lead to prosperity, then obviously lets take it to its logical conclusion. i propose that i steal all of your income. you will now be much better off, correct? it only leads to reason that if 'higher' taxes are 'better' than 100% taxes must be the best, correct?

 

Another stupid comparison. Not one Liberal that I know of thinks anyone should be taxed "100%". Just like no Conservative has argued for the complete disappearance of taxes altogether where we all took in 100% of our income, and the state, federal, and local governments went in to enormous deficits and collapsed. It's about finding the correct middle ground on the tax rate. We think it should be higher on millionaires and billionaires. And we have statistical data and history on our side to back up why it should be higher.

 

 

you are also ignoring economic reality and basic theory by narrowly focusing on tax rates. tax rates matter little to the 'rich' compared to small business owner. by raising taxes, including and up to 100% rates which by your logic would be optimal and lead to the prosperity that no one else has ever known, you hurt the small business owner the most. do you know the start up costs and taxes on small businesses? do you have any experience in this area at all? who benefits from a regulation that says in order to sell 1 pound of cheese to your next door neighbor you need to have a 100K USDA food processing facility, the home kitchen cheese maker or kraft factory?

 

No, it's not "by my logic" because I've never said we should have a 100% tax rate. People do need to spend money and live. And rich people should be able to buy their mansion and yachts. A person who takes in $3 million a year with a net worth of $40 million being taxed at 40% would still be living a luxurious lifestyle. So instead of 3 yachts and 8 luxury cars, they have 2 yachts and 5 luxury cars. Wow, they're really hurting.

 

And yes, my family have/had some small businesses so I would say I have experience working/running small businesses. What we're talking about are tax rates on the individual, not on a business. Another lie created by Conservatives is that moving the tax rate on the richest from 35% to 39% making over $300,000 is against "small businesses" - no, these are individual income taxes. I understand that $250,000 a year for a business is not a lot of money, and thus the tax rate shouldn't (and wouldn't) be the same. What Obama and the Dems have proposed this year is a tax CUT to small businesses (which the Republicans have been filibustering so it doesn't get passed).

 

 

the basic economics lesson you ignore is that we must all look at all groups over a period of time. you can also not see what govt intrusion retards or prohibits. you cannot calculate how many kitchen artisan cheese producers are discouraged by these regulations and 50% corporate tax rates on all profits. this is the unintended consequences that cannot be shown on your stats.

 

you ignore the welfare issue in the unemployment issue completely. this leads to a distorted view and conclusion.

 

 

 

 

it is a myth that the war brought us out of the depression.

the depression was not ended until we had free markets after the war.

some people make the case that the economy would boom if we were in never ending war. both sides of the aisle like this idea. it is nothing but the broken window fallacy.

the war didnt cure unemployment. this is a distortion your fabulous stats show is true, but think about it. if you conscript millions of men into the armed forces, and half of them get killed, i guess you could say we 'fixed' unemployment. but this is nothing but the broken window fallacy on different terrain.

 

I've never argued that the WW2 brought us out of the Depression. Because we were already out of the Depression at least 2 years prior to 1941. Many Conservatives have argued that WW2 brought us out of the Depression, including Casek (Libertarian). They argue this because to not argue it would be to admit that FDR's New Deal was a success. I've always said FDR's New Deal got us out of the Depression and provided statistics/charts to prove it. Following the stock market crash of 1929 (start of the Great Depression), unemployment levels skyrocketed and it wasn't until 1937 that they picked back up to about what it was in 1929. Then there was a brief recession that lasted from 1937-1939, before picking up again to pre-1929-crash levels.

 

 

 

what ''deregulation???" this is another myth.

 

Please don't tell me you weren't aware of the 1999 Republican-Clinton bill which led to further market deregulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

 

the government regulatory sector GREW during this time.

the government promoted this boom and the fed financed it with cheap non market interest rates. a bubble ensued. govt regulations and incentives created a situation that forced banks to make risky loans. and moral hazard was in place due to the federal regulatory apparatus that lead banks to make risky loans knowing they would be bailed out. they were.

 

its hilarious to say they 'deregulated' wall street.

the person that believes wall street was 'deregulated' (as if we had laissez faire, we had market fascism just like we always had and the government forced the market actors to take on risky loans under penalty of law) is also the person that believes that if the govt doesnt increase spending the next budget year, there was a 'cut.'

 

How can you possibly say this with a straight face. That deregulation didn't increase from 1999-2008? What led to the housing crisis was the 0-down lending policy by the banks - 0-down lending is quintessentially deregulation. It's saying that there are no rules and that anyone can own a house whether you can afford it or not. Wall Street deregulation was amplified starting in 1999 with the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Plenty of unregulated insider-trading was rampant. Bonuses for executives were rampant. Wall Street insider-trading was rampant. People betting against bad investments because they KNEW they were bad was rampant - they didn't lose money, but the American people did. All of this was a result of the deregulated market and market anarchy, and the chickens came home to roost in Bush's final years.

 

 

 

 

i know your are not this dumb.

what if i made the statement that...'during the 1850's blacks committed no crime, so because we they committed no crimes in slavery, we need slavery again.' coincidence?'

 

No I would just call you a racist.

 

just insert taxation for slavery and change some words around to say...'look, american middle class workers were better off, so lets just steal more of their money?'

 

what the common denominator is between the two examples is violations of rights. chattel slavery and taxation. both are forms of slavery. how dare you or the govt decide that you have a right to somethe i produced. and then you get to make posts about idiotic talk show hosts towing keith olbermann party lines and using rachel maddow rhetoric that you need to start stealing MORE of other peoples money.

what if the murder rate was lower because guys named theo huxtable are in jail? should we just throw you in jail?

 

and what 'conservative' philosphy? since when do 'conservatives' espouse austrian economics?

 

More poor comparisons. There is no comparison with a person's "name" and crime and all that nonsense. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that a person's name increases or decreases their chance to murder someone. However, being serious, there are correlations between tax rates, government spending, and economic growth. I'm sticking to the subject. You're saying some retarded shit like "more people had afros or went to discos in the 1960's when the economy was better so I think we should all grow our hair out and start dancing to grow the economy".

 

You're just mentioning something that existed at a time period whereas what I'm mentioning directly correlates with the economy, job growth, spending, etc.

 

 

we dont need jobs, we need productivity. govt jobs are make work jobs. govts have no wealth. they can only steal it from citizens, borrow it or print it out of thin air. you have to steal money from the productive people to pay people to dig ditches, repave the same road 10 times, and dig holes and fill them in. this is not productivity, this is meaningless jobs for the sake of jobs. no one is getting richer off of this. the standard of living isnt rising. this is the broken window fallacy yet again.

according to your logic, we could solve the unemployment problem not with freeing up the economy to let it grow and allow productive jobs to come about, we could just junk all tractor trailers and put a 50lb sack on everyones back and make them start carrying the load. now how would everyones living standard be if this were to happen? well, we would all jobs, but we would actually be poorer.

 

Jobs is productivity. They go hand-in-hand. If we want to spend money on building high-speed rail lines (productivity), we create jobs to get the project done. Even after the job is done, permanent jobs are created because the lines need to be maintained, the stations need to be maintained, the trains must have a driver or engineer, etc.

 

 

exactly. who is producing these cheap computers? multi billionaire bill gates!

by the fact that he is rich, he by definition has pleased his customers, made a handsome profit and has made things affordable for everyone!

yet, you ignore this completely and just say...'the middle class is poorer, we need more taxes!'

the middle class didnt have 2-3 cars in the 1950's. the middle class didnt have air conditioning in the 1950's. the market, and rich entrepreneurs created these products and through innovation and competition the prices dropped dramatically. it is silly to say we are 'poorer' today than in the 50's. the poor today live better than any king or caesar in history. the rich guy might have a mercedes, but the poor person has a honda. there is a big difference between this and years past when the poor had to walk and the king had a coach.

 

The middle class has shrunk. The poor have grown. The gap between rich & the middle class has grown. That's what I'm arguing. The middle class must be grown and we must adopt similar policies of the 1950's to make that happen. ECONOMIC policies - not Jim Crow laws or watching Leave It To Beaver or any other unrelated things you want to mention.

 

 

Another poor comparison - Caesar didn't have cars or flat screen TV's because of the time period. He didn't have access to the same medicines because of the advancement in medicine & technology that has occurred since then. Surely you don't expect poor people today to have less technological access than a "rich person" from 2,000 years ago?

 

 

this is laughable.

 

No it's not. You're trying to compare a far-right Nazi ideology to Liberals. Or dictators like Stalin or Mao to Liberals.

 

 

 

the 'people' meaning the government holds in for the people. just like in the USSR.

'people' should of been in ' ' 's.

 

 

 

some conservatives may want religion in government but these conservatives do not want a free market, do not want everyone to have guns, dont want any of the silliness you are trying to make a silly picture of the libertarian ideology being equivalent to somalia.

libertarians do not want religion in govt.

 

Trust me, these same evangelical Conservatives argue for the free market and guns.

 

 

i cant believe i just wrote all that in response to keith olbermann/turks guy/rachel maddow.

 

do you really believe this stuff you write or do you just do it to have fun? its sort of laughable that people actually believe this nonsense and present it in the same rhetoric as an olbermann.

imagine if i got my economic talking points from bill oreilly... i would sound just as silly as you

 

I get what I say from facts, logic, and research. And if Olbermann or Maddow or The Young Turk says it, they always back up what they say with facts and statistics.

 

Which says more than the right who make up lies about birth certificates and Muslims and Obama spending $200 million a day in India escorted by 34 warships and a bunch of other lies.

[angelofdeath]

That's a stupid comparison, because the Conservative economic philosophy doesn't directly address anything about "Jim Crow Laws" and thus is not relevant.

 

my argument FLEW right over your head.

how come you could pick a silly policy that was in place and claim it is in direct relation to 1950's middle class prosperity but NOTHING else that was in effect at that time has nothing to do with it?

 

your logic and economic ignorance is bordering on absurd.

 

 

Another "coincidence" I forgot to mention, is that taxes were higher for the richest under Clinton than under Bush, and the economy was more prosperous in the 1990's. Clinton also cut defense spending drastically and closed a whole lot of unnecessary Cold War era bases, which built up a budget surplus. Again, cutting defense spending is another Liberal principle that most Conservatives argue against.

 

i wish you would please stop calling me a conservative in any meaning of the term that is used today.

which just proves you are an absolute box of rocks.

there are also a myriad of factors that lead to the clinton surplus including defense cuts which are mentioned. i dont just argue for defense cuts, i argue to bring home all troops from the 800 military installations around the globe. this is hardly a 'liberal' stance.

you are much to caught up in these left right paradigms. you have your partisan goggles on and its hilarious. whats even funnier is that you act as though my ideology is the same as sean hannity's

 

Another stupid comparison. Not one Liberal that I know of thinks anyone should be taxed "100%". Just like no Conservative has argued for the complete disappearance of taxes altogether where we all took in 100% of our income, and the state, federal, and local governments went in to enormous deficits and collapsed. It's about finding the correct middle ground on the tax rate. We think it should be higher on millionaires and billionaires. And we have statistical data and history on our side to back up why it should be higher.

 

taxes are theft. you nor you using the govt has no right to steal my wealth. in fact i invite you to personally come and attempt to confiscate my wealth. any liberal will never do this because he only likes to use the armed bully boy agents of the state to do this.

 

the socialists which you admire and have the same ideology of argue for 100% tax rates. ever read the communist manifesto? 10 planks?

obviously no conservative has argued for zero taxes. these two sides typically spend their entire lives, such as yourself, arguing over whether the top income tax bracket should be 39.6 or 39.8.

i want liberty and i have much better things to do than to argue about these silly tyrannical confiscatory tax levels.

 

no matter what you or the left 'think' levels should be, you are still glossing over the fact that taxes are theft. a violation of rights. you have no right to this wealth. nor does the government. taxation is slavery.

 

 

 

No, it's not "by my logic" because I've never said we should have a 100% tax rate. People do need to spend money and live. And rich people should be able to buy their mansion and yachts. A person who takes in $3 million a year with a net worth of $40 million being taxed at 40% would still be living a luxurious lifestyle.

 

oh wow. i guess you never have heard of reductio arguments to prove the absurdity of your claims.

how grateful of you to only use the armed agents of the government to forcefully extract 40% of someones property instead of more. its always fun to watch your slithering ilk make these statements, especially you are not the ones enforcing your policies. you claim to be peaceable people yet all your policies are backed by government force against innocent people. if any private person walked up to bill gates and put a gun to his head and forced him to hand over 40% of his income, that person would go to jail. if any government agent puts a gun to bill gates head and demands he hand over 40% of his income if bill gates resists he goes to jail and the money is stolen anyway.

 

yet this is considered a sane and rational position.

its insane, not sane.

 

its always hilarious when people such as yourself make these 'suggestions' of policy yet you are shielded from the actual violence that ensues in enforcing them. if you were actually the one who was beating the faces of nonconformists into the ground with your rifle butt while boarding his family onto a boxcar never to be seen again, i think you MIGHT hold a different position. then again, maybe not. you would consider this just the 'price to pay for civilization.'

 

What Obama and the Dems have proposed this year is a tax CUT to small businesses (which the Republicans have been filibustering so it doesn't get passed).

 

frankly i could care less about what minute 'cut' (they never cut anything, a cut in DC means they just dont raise it the next year)obama is talking about. unless he is talking about cutting taxes for everyone 10-20% for starters, screw him. .9% 'cuts' are nothing.

how benevolent of the all knowing ever wise dictator to allow the mere serfs to keep a fraction of a percent more of their income.

 

i could care less about your partisan type bickering, i want the IRS GONE

 

I've never argued that the WW2 brought us out of the Depression. Because we were already out of the Depression at least 2 years prior to 1941.

 

the US didnt come out of depression until 1946 and after.

 

 

That deregulation didn't increase from 1999-2008? What led to the housing crisis was the 0-down lending policy by the banks - 0-down lending is quintessentially deregulation. It's saying that there are no rules and that anyone can own a house whether you can afford it or not. Wall Street deregulation was amplified starting in 1999 with the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Plenty of unregulated insider-trading was rampant. Bonuses for executives were rampant. Wall Street insider-trading was rampant. People betting against bad investments because they KNEW they were bad was rampant - they didn't lose money, but the American people did. All of this was a result of the deregulated market and market anarchy, and the chickens came home to roost in Bush's final years.

 

it cannot be 'deregulation' because the govt still regulated and forced these policies on everyone. that is not deregulation, it is still government control, it was merely a policy change. america has been pushing for an 'ownership' society in housing since the creation of fannie mae. this meltdown was just the climax.

 

market anarchy. hahahahahahahhahahahahaha

a government that controlled every aspect of the economy, had tens of thousands of regulating bureaucrats, dozens of agencies, 76K pages of new laws per year being passed and you are saying this is 'market anarchy?'

 

this is the most absolutely hilarious thing i have ever heard.

yup, i summed it up quite simply in my first post... you and young turks guy are just plain idiotic.sorry, there is no other way to put it.

 

 

Jobs is productivity. They go hand-in-hand. If we want to spend money on building high-speed rail lines (productivity), we create jobs to get the project done. Even after the job is done, permanent jobs are created because the lines need to be maintained, the stations need to be maintained, the trains must have a driver or engineer, etc.

 

bullshit.

when roosevelt hired the guy to shoe pigeons off the white house lawn paid for with taxes he confiscated from the only people producing in the economy in a time of duress for most people, what exactly was being produced?

 

when you hire a bunch of people in the WPA and make them dig ditches all day long, what is being produced? if these projects are so profitable they would be done by the private sector.

 

govt make work projects amount to digging holes and filling them in. they create no wealth. it is a loss.

some people like yourself have argued that destruction of wealth is good for the economy. 'oh, yay! hurricane katrina, it was bad and all but look at the boom afterwards!'

no one is getting any richer, they are just replacing the wealth that was destroyed.

 

learn about the broken window fallacy. then get back to me.

 

 

The middle class has shrunk. The poor have grown. The gap between rich & the middle class has grown. That's what I'm arguing. The middle class must be grown and we must adopt similar policies of the 1950's to make that happen. ECONOMIC policies - not Jim Crow laws or watching Leave It To Beaver or any other unrelated things you want to mention.

 

this is laughable. only taxation can affect how people act and work in an economy. got ya.

the poor has grown as a direct result of the government declaring WAR ON IT! when you subsidize something you get more of it.

open your eyes. not to mention they keep changing the poverty definition to constantly keep including more and more people. and then we wonder why there are more 'poor.' yet these same poor all have electricity, flat screens and cars.

 

but i forgot, only taxation has any effect whatsoever on how people cooperate in the economy.

excuse me for living.

 

Another poor comparison - Caesar didn't have cars or flat screen TV's because of the time period. He didn't have access to the same medicines because of the advancement in medicine & technology that has occurred since then.

 

sure its a proper comparison. what do you have to thank for flat screen tv's cars and medicine? CAPITALISM. every thing you love you owe to capitalism. attempting to make profits by pleasing your customers in free exchanges. the market brought about these things and the market is exactly what you want to abolish in favor of a socialist paradise.

wealth does not come out of thin air, it is created.

this is another part where the marxists get it wrong. they think wealth is just a natural state of affairs. it is not. for most of human kind the 'poor' lived in grinding below subsistence poverty. the 'rich' had abundance. the poor didnt have much recourse because there was no other options. today the poor can drive, use computers, and have air conditioning. and you want to keep focusing on these stupid wealth gap? who the hell really cares?

 

it always makes me giggle. you have people such as yourself engaging in capitalist acts. probably are fairly well to do yourself. you get together with your friends and go to eat. you sit down. you have money in your pocket. the food is great. the music is good. people are driving by in cars. talking on cell phones, etc. and the conversation shifts to politics. immediately everyone starts damning the market. they start talking about the greatness of marxist policies. yet everything surrounding them, everything they know, everything they love, they owe to capitalism.

 

even che, he fought his whole life trying to overthrow capitalism and he still ends up on a T shirt at the mall sold by the GAP.

 

Trust me, these same evangelical Conservatives argue for the free market and guns.

 

most conservatives support gun control. they want background checks, gun permits, CCW permits, restrictions on who can buy guns, tens of thousands of laws regulating how they can be bought, sold, traded, etc. they dont want muslims to own guns, the list goes on and on. they want to retain their side by side shotguns and 30-30's. you want to take these away. i want full auto's legalized and sold at walmart for cash with no background check or wait period w/ a special discount if you also purchase a 3/4 ton pickup truck bed full of ammo. do you see the difference? probably not.

 

main stream conservatives want the 'free market' of george bush. this is absolutely laughable. but of course a guy such as yourself falls right in with them because until obama we had market anarchy.

 

on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the most unfree market) liberals are about a 10. conservatives are about a 9.

enough said.

 

I get what I say from facts, logic, and research. And if Olbermann or Maddow or The Young Turk says it, they always back up what they say with facts and statistics.

 

ah yes. surely.

just like how rachel maddow would have you believe every person to the right of hillary clinton is a war mongering, minority hating, xenophobic kkk member who wants to over throw ZOG and institute a hitlerian military dictatorship.

[TheoHuxtable..]

my argument FLEW right over your head.

how come you could pick a silly policy that was in place and claim it is in direct relation to 1950's middle class prosperity but NOTHING else that was in effect at that time has nothing to do with it?.

 

No it didn't, you condescending idiot. What I brought up was economic policies like government spending and taxes that existed in the 1950's, which you called a "coincidence", and tried to compare it to something random like "Jim Crow" from the 1950's even though it largely has nothing to do with economic policy.

 

 

your logic and economic ignorance is bordering on absurd.

 

 

 

 

i wish you would please stop calling me a conservative in any meaning of the term that is used today.

which just proves you are an absolute box of rocks.

there are also a myriad of factors that lead to the clinton surplus including defense cuts which are mentioned. i dont just argue for defense cuts, i argue to bring home all troops from the 800 military installations around the globe. this is hardly a 'liberal' stance.

you are much to caught up in these left right paradigms. you have your partisan goggles on and its hilarious. whats even funnier is that you act as though my ideology is the same as sean hannity's

 

 

Hey Conservative, everything you're parroting are the same ideologies that your fellow Conservatives parrot, Conservative.

 

In many ways your ideology is similar to Sean Hannity's. While he's more of a neocon on the military front, you both argue for deregulation and low taxes for the rich. Your stance on reducing military sides with Liberal and "Ron Paul Conservative" stances.

 

taxes are theft. you nor you using the govt has no right to steal my wealth. in fact i invite you to personally come and attempt to confiscate my wealth. any liberal will never do this because he only likes to use the armed bully boy agents of the state to do this.

 

Taxes are necessary for a government and a society to function. How else do you expect our roads, bridges, military, police, veterans administration, and everything else to be paid for?

 

the socialists which you admire and have the same ideology of argue for 100% tax rates. ever read the communist manifesto? 10 planks?

obviously no conservative has argued for zero taxes. these two sides typically spend their entire lives, such as yourself, arguing over whether the top income tax bracket should be 39.6 or 39.8.

i want liberty and i have much better things to do than to argue about these silly tyrannical confiscatory tax levels.

 

First of all, which "socialists" have I claimed to admire and which of them want 100% tax rates? No society can function if no one could spend any of their money. What you're saying sounds closer to communism more than anything. What's with these straw mans you're setting up when I never claimed to be for any of that.

 

Those percentage points that you laugh about make a difference. Raising it from 35% to 39% (which is currently the Democrat's plan), would add close to a trillion dollars to the budget over the next 10 years.

 

no matter what you or the left 'think' levels should be, you are still glossing over the fact that taxes are theft. a violation of rights. you have no right to this wealth. nor does the government. taxation is slavery.

 

Taxes aren't theft. How is that a "fact"? It's just your opinion. And I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I want your "wealth". Secondly, the entire purpose of taxes throughout history is the redistribution of wealth. It goes in to roads, military, social programs, parks, etc. I worked for the government briefly right after high school and you can say I attained other's "wealth" through their taxes. Am I thief in your eyes? You must think all cops, CIA agents, firemen, government officials, military personnel, city workers, and all other government employees are "thieves" since essentially their paychecks come from the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

 

 

oh wow. i guess you never have heard of reductio arguments to prove the absurdity of your claims.

how grateful of you to only use the armed agents of the government to forcefully extract 40% of someones property instead of more. its always fun to watch your slithering ilk make these statements, especially you are not the ones enforcing your policies. you claim to be peaceable people yet all your policies are backed by government force against innocent people. if any private person walked up to bill gates and put a gun to his head and forced him to hand over 40% of his income, that person would go to jail. if any government agent puts a gun to bill gates head and demands he hand over 40% of his income if bill gates resists he goes to jail and the money is stolen anyway.

 

"Armed agents"? What in the world are you talking about? I file my taxes like a normal human being. With paper work with a through a tax service. No one comes up with guns drawn. Most everyone I know goes about it in a similar way. No "guns drawn" and all that other fantasy you've come up with.

 

yet this is considered a sane and rational position.

its insane, not sane.

 

its always hilarious when people such as yourself make these 'suggestions' of policy yet you are shielded from the actual violence that ensues in enforcing them. if you were actually the one who was beating the faces of nonconformists into the ground with your rifle butt while boarding his family onto a boxcar never to be seen again, i think you MIGHT hold a different position. then again, maybe not. you would consider this just the 'price to pay for civilization.'

 

 

 

frankly i could care less about what minute 'cut' (they never cut anything, a cut in DC means they just dont raise it the next year)obama is talking about. unless he is talking about cutting taxes for everyone 10-20% for starters, screw him. .9% 'cuts' are nothing.

how benevolent of the all knowing ever wise dictator to allow the mere serfs to keep a fraction of a percent more of their income.

 

What makes him a dictator? I thought he was democratically elected?

 

i could care less about your partisan type bickering, i want the IRS GONE

 

You want the federal government privatized and a 0% tax rate too, I'm sure.

 

 

 

the US didnt come out of depression until 1946 and after. /QUOTE]

 

Absolutely, 100% incorrect. As you'll see in the charts, the Depression ended in 1937 to 1939 at the latest.

 

US Industrial Production Chart:

 

Information based on data from: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/INDPRO.tx

 

US GDP per person

Information based on data from http://measuringworth.com

 

Employment:

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html

 

 

it cannot be 'deregulation' because the govt still regulated and forced these policies on everyone. that is not deregulation, it is still government control, it was merely a policy change. america has been pushing for an 'ownership' society in housing since the creation of fannie mae. this meltdown was just the climax.

 

market anarchy. hahahahahahahhahahahahaha

a government that controlled every aspect of the economy, had tens of thousands of regulating bureaucrats, dozens of agencies, 76K pages of new laws per year being passed and you are saying this is 'market anarchy?'

 

this is the most absolutely hilarious thing i have ever heard.

yup, i summed it up quite simply in my first post... you and young turks guy are just plain idiotic.sorry, there is no other way to put it.

 

According to you, the mere existence of a government is some kind of totalitarian, fascist control. Again, were you not aware of the deregulation policies set forth in 1999 with the Financial Services Modernization Act? Were you not aware of Bush's deregulation policies over his 8 years (with the exception of October 2008 when he had to nationalize Wall Street and the housing industry to save us from complete collapse).

 

Cenk of The Young Turks is far more knowledgeable on these matters than you are. Your arguments are so hollow that you call him an idiot and I ask you to prove him wrong and your sissy response is "on what"? Well, idiot, stick to your guns - if you call someone an idiot surely you should be able to easily tell them where they're wrong.

 

 

 

bullshit.

when roosevelt hired the guy to shoe pigeons off the white house lawn paid for with taxes he confiscated from the only people producing in the economy in a time of duress for most people, what exactly was being produced?

 

when you hire a bunch of people in the WPA and make them dig ditches all day long, what is being produced? if these projects are so profitable they would be done by the private sector.

 

govt make work projects amount to digging holes and filling them in. they create no wealth. it is a loss.

some people like yourself have argued that destruction of wealth is good for the economy. 'oh, yay! hurricane katrina, it was bad and all but look at the boom afterwards!'

no one is getting any richer, they are just replacing the wealth that was destroyed.

 

learn about the broken window fallacy. then get back to me.

 

Again, incorrect. Even with little productivity (and they weren't just digging holes and filling them in, the WPA created jobs that served a purpose), jobs are created - which means MONEY in the pockets of millions of citizens. This money is then spent back in the economy. Basic economics will tell you that a healthy economy depends on the speed of the circulation of money through the economy. 70% of the American economy is consumer-based. Which means it's mainly driven by SPENDING. A person with a job/income is going to be spending more than a person without a job/income.

 

 

this is laughable. only taxation can affect how people act and work in an economy. got ya.

the poor has grown as a direct result of the government declaring WAR ON IT! when you subsidize something you get more of it.

open your eyes. not to mention they keep changing the poverty definition to constantly keep including more and more people. and then we wonder why there are more 'poor.' yet these same poor all have electricity, flat screens and cars.

 

but i forgot, only taxation has any effect whatsoever on how people cooperate in the economy.

excuse me for living.

 

Corporate America declared war on the poor by shipping their jobs overseas to maximize profits. Corporate America declared war on the poor due to the fact that Health Insurance costs are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies in America. Unchecked power of Corporate America and lack of regulation is what hurt the poor. Lower and lower and lower taxes for the ultra-rich and the cutting of social programs to pay for those tax cuts in the process (which is essentially taking from the lower 90% and giving to the upper 2%), is what hurt the poor.

 

sure its a proper comparison. what do you have to thank for flat screen tv's cars and medicine? CAPITALISM. every thing you love you owe to capitalism. attempting to make profits by pleasing your customers in free exchanges. the market brought about these things and the market is exactly what you want to abolish in favor of a socialist paradise.

 

When did I ever argue against capitalism? I am a capitalist. I only argue for comprehensive regulation to keep Big Business in check. "Socialism", if that's what you want to call it, can co-exist with capitalism. Socialism isn't communism. Look at more regulated "socialist" societies like Canada or Finland. Canada is no longer in a recession, and the recession they did have was mild and brief in comparison to ours. The banks in Canada have far more regulation than in the US. Oh, is that another "coincidence" you're going to call? Because more "regulation" and their "socialist" health care system according to you should mean that Canada should be worse economically than us. But that isn't the case.

 

wealth does not come out of thin air, it is created.

this is another part where the marxists get it wrong. they think wealth is just a natural state of affairs. it is not. for most of human kind the 'poor' lived in grinding below subsistence poverty. the 'rich' had abundance. the poor didnt have much recourse because there was no other options. today the poor can drive, use computers, and have air conditioning. and you want to keep focusing on these stupid wealth gap? who the hell really cares?

 

it always makes me giggle. you have people such as yourself engaging in capitalist acts. probably are fairly well to do yourself. you get together with your friends and go to eat. you sit down. you have money in your pocket. the food is great. the music is good. people are driving by in cars. talking on cell phones, etc. and the conversation shifts to politics. immediately everyone starts damning the market. they start talking about the greatness of marxist policies. yet everything surrounding them, everything they know, everything they love, they owe to capitalism.

 

Again, you fully misunderstood me because I believe in capitalist principles. My dad owns his own home. And his own business. I own a piece of property as well. I couldn't do this if it weren't for capitalism. I have money in Morgan Stanley, although I lost some during the recession and was on the verge of pulling out. I've made money through the capitalist system.

 

A person that believes in no capitalism at all is a communist, not a socialist. You appear to be mixing the two together as if they're teh same.

 

 

even che, he fought his whole life trying to overthrow capitalism and he still ends up on a T shirt at the mall sold by the GAP.

 

most conservatives support gun control. they want background checks, gun permits, CCW permits, restrictions on who can buy guns, tens of thousands of laws regulating how they can be bought, sold, traded, etc. they dont want muslims to own guns, the list goes on and on. they want to retain their side by side shotguns and 30-30's. you want to take these away. i want full auto's legalized and sold at walmart for cash with no background check or wait period w/ a special discount if you also purchase a 3/4 ton pickup truck bed full of ammo. do you see the difference? probably not.

 

main stream conservatives want the 'free market' of george bush. this is absolutely laughable. but of course a guy such as yourself falls right in with them because until obama we had market anarchy.

 

on a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being the most unfree market) liberals are about a 10. conservatives are about a 9.

enough said.

 

Yeah you are definitely off your rocker. If you think Conservatives and the right wing aren't "free market" enough, then I don't know what is. In your utopian worldview I picture your idea of the free market is a place with a 0% tax rate and an complete absence of any government at all. All kinds of insider-trading and ponzi schemes are fair game to you. Basically an every-man-for-himself mindset in a completely profit-driven world. You have a Wild West economic structure where it's just anything goes. Everyone is their own law. You want to play sports without any referees.

 

 

ah yes. surely.

just like how rachel maddow would have you believe every person to the right of hillary clinton is a war mongering, minority hating, xenophobic kkk member who wants to over throw ZOG and institute a hitlerian military dictatorship.

 

Actually Rachel Maddow bashed Hillary Clinton for voting for the Iraq War in 2002. Maddow didn't support her in the 2008 Democratic primaries because she was so disgusted with Hillary.

[angelofdeath]

No it didn't, you condescending idiot. What I brought up was economic policies like government spending and taxes that existed in the 1950's, which you called a "coincidence", and tried to compare it to something random like "Jim Crow" from the 1950's even though it largely has nothing to do with economic policy.

 

 

you are choosing to only look at tax rates, while ignoring every other economic factor.this is economic ignorance. how can you say only tax rates affect the economy. your claim that high taxes=prosperity is no different than another idiot saying...'jim crow= prosperity for middle class whites because blacks were forbidden by law to interact with whites therefore they were resided to second class jobs.'

 

face it.

 

In many ways your ideology is similar to Sean Hannity's. While he's more of a neocon on the military front, you both argue for deregulation and low taxes for the rich. Your stance on reducing military sides with Liberal and "Ron Paul Conservative" stances.

 

i dont argue for 'lower' taxes i argue for abolishing the IRS. this is a huge difference.

then again, you and turk think anyone right of hillary clinton are exactly the same.

 

 

Taxes are necessary for a government and a society to function. How else do you expect our roads, bridges, military, police, veterans administration, and everything else to be paid for?

 

they would be paid for just like we pay for food. imagine if we had socialized food distribution out of the back of theohuxtable/stalin army trucks. then you would be saying...'leave food to the market! its much to important! heresy!'

 

the govt cant manage roads, they kill 40K people a year. the defense dept is broke. the military cant round up a couple hundred arabs. the govt cant even protect its own national security headquarters, the pentagon from attack. it couldnt, despite billions of dollar in its budget stop a couple arabs with boxcutters from killing 3K people in new york. the VA cant even take care of its own people.

enough said.

they have such a great track record.

the world would collapse without such great efficiency.

 

Those percentage points that you laugh about make a difference. Raising it from 35% to 39% (which is currently the Democrat's plan), would add close to a trillion dollars to the budget over the next 10 years.

instead of confiscating peoples property by force, i propose you and your govt stop spening, pull the purse strings, and get the financial house in order just like every other american has to

 

 

 

Taxes aren't theft. How is that a "fact"? It's just your opinion. And I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I want your "wealth".

 

its not an opinion at all.

taxes are theft. suppose i do not consent to someone robbing me.

yet the govt claims this right.

my family settled in the US before any US govt existed. because a gang got together and decided they wanted to call themselves the government, they have no right to steal things from me. they cannot conscript me to send me to war. they cannot take my income. this is violation of my rights.

do you understand rights?

 

taxes are theft because there is no consent. what makes slavery, slavery? was it the work, or was it the songs? neither. it was that you were forced against your will to do something you objected to. by this very definition taxation is theft.

if i voluntarily give my money to someone in exchange for a service or good, this is freedom. when the govt or someone else takes my property without my consent, this is theft.

 

if a person cannot understand that govt is force or what voluntary and invoiuntary exchanges are, no rational discussion can take place.

 

 

Secondly, the entire purpose of taxes throughout history is the redistribution of wealth. It goes in to roads, military, social programs, parks, etc. I worked for the government briefly right after high school and you can say I attained other's "wealth" through their taxes. Am I thief in your eyes? You must think all cops, CIA agents, firemen, government officials, military personnel, city workers, and all other government employees are "thieves" since essentially their paychecks come from the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

 

yes. they live off of stolen wealth.

i consent to a very few limited government functions.

i essentially support taxation for a court system, military and police.

government workers make on average make twice the amount of the private sector. the private sector workers work for half as much money and are twice do twice a good a job.

city workers essentially are make work job holders. govt officials are parasites. firemen are typically over paid union workers who think that if they dont have a 100K a year pension till they die they are being discriminated against and these are the first people to get mad at a market transaction. CIA has engaged in more harm that good. if it wasnt for foreign intervention we wouldnt have much of the problems we have today.

 

 

"Armed agents"? What in the world are you talking about? I file my taxes like a normal human being. With paper work with a through a tax service. No one comes up with guns drawn. Most everyone I know goes about it in a similar way. No "guns drawn" and all that other fantasy you've come up with.

 

step out of the box for a second little theo.

lets pretend that you dont consent to 50% of your income being taken in taxes and inflation.

you refuse to pay your taxes. what is the penalty. well, the IRS takes action against you. the put a lien on your house, garnish your wages, and essentially rob the money from you. if you still refuse this, they take you to court. the court, acting on behalf of the ruling crime family that is the US govt, decides you owe them XXX,XXX of money in taxes. you spit on their floor and tell them to F off.

you go home. they send in the police to arrest you. if you resist they forcibly extract you or if you resist enough, the police claim the right to kill you all simply because you didnt allow the govt to forcibly confiscate tax money they claim they have a right to.

 

if you cannot understand this, rational discourse is not possible.

 

 

 

What makes him a dictator? I thought he was democratically elected?

 

 

 

You want the federal government privatized and a 0% tax rate too, I'm sure.

 

i dont want the govt privatized i want it abolished.

i'd prefer taxes that just pay for police military and courts for starters. we can then continue the conversation after we reach this point.

 

 

Absolutely, 100% incorrect. As you'll see in the charts, the Depression ended in 1937 to 1939 at the latest.

 

i urge you to learn the austrian view on statistics and empirics.

 

then listen to this. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/12/higgs_on_the_gr.html

your argument has just be 'pwned'

 

Well, idiot, stick to your guns - if you call someone an idiot surely you should be able to easily tell them where they're wrong.

 

the guy is a typical partisan political hack. no one can take these types seriously.

from mitch mcconnell your boy here, turk guy.

 

Even with little productivity (and they weren't just digging holes and filling them in, the WPA created jobs that served a purpose), jobs are created - which means MONEY in the pockets of millions of citizens.

 

what 'purpose?'

how did these jobs produce profit for the people employing the people?

how does building roads in the middle of the forest benefit all of the US, increase their standard of living or anything even remotely similar?

henry ford served a purpose.

when FDR employed people to slaughter 6 million hogs, pour tens of thousands of gallons of milk in the gutter when people were eating ketchup sandwiches, and paid farmers not to farm he did not make americans better off. hate to break it to you.

 

This money is then spent back in the economy. Basic economics will tell you that a healthy economy depends on the speed of the circulation of money through the economy. 70% of the American economy is consumer-based. Which means it's mainly driven by SPENDING. A person with a job/income is going to be spending more than a person without a job/income.

 

please educate yourself on the broken window fallacy.

 

then watch this.

learn about this guy named hayek.

 

he totally smashes the keynesian nonsense you keep espousing.

 

 

Corporate America declared war on the poor by shipping their jobs overseas to maximize profits. Corporate America declared war on the poor due to the fact that Health Insurance costs are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies in America. Unchecked power of Corporate America and lack of regulation is what hurt the poor. Lower and lower and lower taxes for the ultra-rich and the cutting of social programs to pay for those tax cuts in the process (which is essentially taking from the lower 90% and giving to the upper 2%), is what hurt the poor.

 

ever wonder why 'corporate' america shipped jobs over seas? govt regulations and excessive taxation!

something you dont want to address. incentives work in strange ways and miraculously sometimes people even, gasp, are steered by them! OH KNOWZZZ!

 

 

Again, you fully misunderstood me because I believe in capitalist principles.

 

this is 'funny haha' (in the words of carl from slingblade)

 

if you believe in capitalism why do you insist on crippling it in every way possible.

you know your slivering ilk have been saying the same things for over 100 years. we just need a couple more 'sensible' regulations to 'reign in the excess' then we will have utopia. what you have accomplished, even the biggest statists of the 1910's would be like....'woaaaah, that is tooo much regulation...'

so when exactly do you think you will fix everything? exactly how many more laws?

congress passes 75K pages of law every year... how many more pages per year do you need??!?!?!

it is insane for any freedom lover to take you seriously. you WILL never stop crippling the economy. you will never stop. ever. same with gun control. there are over 20k gun laws in the US and still your types still claim we only need a 'few more sensible' measures.

 

you will not stop until the govt has nationalized everything, tax rates are 90% on anyone except the 'poor' which you will soon call all of the middle class, and all guns are confiscated.

 

If you think Conservatives and the right wing aren't "free market" enough, then I don't know what is. In your utopian worldview I picture your idea of the free market is a place with a 0% tax rate and an complete absence of any government at all. All kinds of insider-trading and ponzi schemes are fair game to you.

 

this again showcases your economic ignorance.

no one, absent govt moral hazard situations like we have today would invest their money in reckless institutions.

remember, people want to make profits right? how will they make profit, without govt insurance, in a free market if they lie, cheat, steal or commit fraud?

 

Basically an every-man-for-himself mindset in a completely profit-driven world. You have a Wild West economic structure where it's just anything goes. Everyone is their own law. You want to play sports without any referees.

 

ignorance.

the referee is private property.

get an education on the market and economics, then we can talk

 

Actually Rachel Maddow bashed Hillary Clinton for voting for the Iraq War in 2002. Maddow didn't support her in the 2008 Democratic primaries because she was so disgusted with Hillary.

 

it doesnt surprise me at all that you know such intimate things about a statist big government liberal that seeks to rob the freedom of and control everyone in america's life.

because only she has the right view.

whereas i support everyone being responsible for their own actions. freedom. responsibility. letting people to be free to make the decisions that affect their own lives and not be harassed, harangued, arrested, conscripted, regulated, or robbed my every waking moment by a single central body that has claimed authoritarian power in DC. you want to regulate everything i do down to how much salt i consume or how big my toilet bowl is.

dont you have anything better to do with your life than to run other peoples lives?

[El Mamerro]

Ask them fellas in Colorado Springs how it's going for them by cutting the hell out of taxes.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

 

Seems pretty rosy.

[angelofdeath]

OMG! people may have to actually allow private business to handle things and people have to rely on themselves and not the govt! omg omg!

 

but this underlies the hilarity of the nature of bureaucracy. it happens all the time.

not to long ago congress voted to cut the national park budget. instead of cutting the most obscure unproductive jobs, they instead, shut down the washington monument. probably the busiest thing the park service manages. shut it down. who would of thought the national park service budget was expanded all of a sudden?

it happens all the time with city and state workers as well. people start crying wolf about 'cutting' services and the first thing the city cuts is police. probably the most important govt monopolized service. instead of cutting the guys making 25 an hour to paint fire plugs and cutting their 50K a year pensions when they retire, they fire cops.

in short time, budgets are raised.

 

but the tax 'cutting' thing is hilarious.

govt schools cost twice as much per pupil as do private schools and they deliver half the results. the free market always does more with less. govt doesnt. the govt cant run the post office, amtrack or the dod, and these very same managers are the ones talking down to us peons about the economy. if the average american family operated the way a govt does, over pays for everything, wastes money, and then when they lose their income, they use credit cards to keep their aggregate demand up, what would happen to the family?

 

all govts need to do is run more efficiently. get rid of the unions. allow competition atleast if everyone is scared of privatization. allow people to compete for these 120K a year fire fighter jobs in the open market. stop paying people to sleep for all but 6 weeks out of the year.

there is so much waste and abuse, it is laughable to think that if taxes are cut, things just shut down.