Barack and Joe
-
The really scary part is that people like Ed don't care. All of the "oh my god Bush has destroyed our civil liberties" crowd, could care less that a man who dared quesiton Obama is being destroyed for it. yet more proof of the real truth.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
And Ed didn't try to set up McCain for a gotcha moment on tape. Damn that Ed!
-
And Ed didn't try to set up McCain for a gotcha moment on tape. Damn that Ed!
If that was a set up - it worked. Obama admitted who and what he is. Thats the only pertinent issue.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
If that was a set up - it worked. Obama admitted who and what he is. Thats the only pertinent issue.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Okay, Stan. I understand that you want 90% of the nation's wealth concentrated in the hands of 1% of its population. I assume you're a member of the 1%. I personally would rather see that 90% of the nation's wealth spread more equally among 90% of the population. I'm not a member of the 1%. Perhaps that's why we take a different view.
-
Okay, Stan. I understand that you want 90% of the nation's wealth concentrated in the hands of 1% of its population. I assume you're a member of the 1%. I personally would rather see that 90% of the nation's wealth spread more equally among 90% of the population. I'm not a member of the 1%. Perhaps that's why we take a different view.
Nope. I spent most of my life very much towards the bottom. But I have benefitted from rich people freely spreading their wealth by paying me to do a job for them. I don't need Obama to help with that by forcing them to give that same money to people for doing nothing in return.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Nope. I spent most of my life very much towards the bottom. But I have benefitted from rich people freely spreading their wealth by paying me to do a job for them. I don't need Obama to help with that by forcing them to give that same money to people for doing nothing in return.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't need Obama to help with that by forcing them to give that same money to people for doing nothing in return.
Welfare? Obama's not talking about welfare, he's talking about returning the income tax system to its traditional balance where lower paid workers pay less of the tax burden and higher income (not necessarily workers; this includes passive, non-productive income, not the kind that creates jobs) persons pay more. That's how the system worked for most of the history of the U.S. until Reagan upended the apple cart.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't need Obama to help with that by forcing them to give that same money to people for doing nothing in return.
Welfare? Obama's not talking about welfare, he's talking about returning the income tax system to its traditional balance where lower paid workers pay less of the tax burden and higher income (not necessarily workers; this includes passive, non-productive income, not the kind that creates jobs) persons pay more. That's how the system worked for most of the history of the U.S. until Reagan upended the apple cart.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Obama's not talking about welfare
Yes, he is.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
he's talking about returning the income tax system to its traditional balance where lower paid workers pay less of the tax burden and higher income (not necessarily workers; this includes passive, non-productive income, not the kind that creates jobs) persons pay more. That's how the system worked for most of the history of the U.S. until Reagan upended the apple cart.
There was no federal income tax before 1913, so regardless of how you define it, 1913 to 1980 is certainly not 'most of the history of the US'. And that history includes the draconian economic mismanagement that made the depression great. In any case, lower paid workers are still paying far less of the tax burden than are the rich. Obama is a marxist. He is going to govern as a marxist. The entire concept of income taxation emerged during the progressive era which itself was part and parcel of the early application of Marxist economic theory. Free market capitalism is driven by rich people spending and investing money and less well off people doing something productive to earn some share of that money so that the rich can become even richer. Its a win-win economic system all the way around and should be encouraged and protected by our government. Taxes should be kept as low as possible on everyone, rich and poor alike, and there should certainly be no effort by the government to define how much is too much or who it should be redistributed to based upon some sort of bureaucratic formula.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Obama's not talking about welfare
Yes, he is.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
he's talking about returning the income tax system to its traditional balance where lower paid workers pay less of the tax burden and higher income (not necessarily workers; this includes passive, non-productive income, not the kind that creates jobs) persons pay more. That's how the system worked for most of the history of the U.S. until Reagan upended the apple cart.
There was no federal income tax before 1913, so regardless of how you define it, 1913 to 1980 is certainly not 'most of the history of the US'. And that history includes the draconian economic mismanagement that made the depression great. In any case, lower paid workers are still paying far less of the tax burden than are the rich. Obama is a marxist. He is going to govern as a marxist. The entire concept of income taxation emerged during the progressive era which itself was part and parcel of the early application of Marxist economic theory. Free market capitalism is driven by rich people spending and investing money and less well off people doing something productive to earn some share of that money so that the rich can become even richer. Its a win-win economic system all the way around and should be encouraged and protected by our government. Taxes should be kept as low as possible on everyone, rich and poor alike, and there should certainly be no effort by the government to define how much is too much or who it should be redistributed to based upon some sort of bureaucratic formula.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is driven by rich people spending and investing money and less well off people doing something productive to earn some share of that money so that the rich can become even richer.
Wow, Stan, that's the first time I've ever heard you articulate that theory. Sounds like you want a return to Seigneurialism. Good luck with that.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is driven by rich people spending and investing money and less well off people doing something productive to earn some share of that money so that the rich can become even richer.
Wow, Stan, that's the first time I've ever heard you articulate that theory. Sounds like you want a return to Seigneurialism. Good luck with that.
It is precisely the opposite of that. Seigneurialism is closer to what Obama would give us - peasants working to supply a lord with wealth and him providing them with protection in return. Two free men freely exchanging services for payment is the very opposite of that and the reason why this country has been such an economic powerhouse over the last two centuries. In free market capitalism, the rich get richer, the poor get richer, and everyone in between gets richer. The economic trend is always in a generally upward direction for everyone, and the government becomes less powerful and influencial becuaes people don't rely upon it for their welfare. With collectivism, the reverse trend occurs, everyone becomes less wealthy over time, but the central governemnt always becomes ever more powerful as the masses become ever more dependent upon it. That is precisely the goal of Obama and the democrat party.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
It is precisely the opposite of that. Seigneurialism is closer to what Obama would give us - peasants working to supply a lord with wealth and him providing them with protection in return. Two free men freely exchanging services for payment is the very opposite of that and the reason why this country has been such an economic powerhouse over the last two centuries. In free market capitalism, the rich get richer, the poor get richer, and everyone in between gets richer. The economic trend is always in a generally upward direction for everyone, and the government becomes less powerful and influencial becuaes people don't rely upon it for their welfare. With collectivism, the reverse trend occurs, everyone becomes less wealthy over time, but the central governemnt always becomes ever more powerful as the masses become ever more dependent upon it. That is precisely the goal of Obama and the democrat party.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In free market capitalism, the rich get richer, the poor get richer, and everyone in between gets richer.
But we don't have anything approaching free market capitalism. Do some research on the distribution of wealth in the past 30 years. Research the composition of income taxes by corporation versus individual. Learn about the ratio of executive to worker compensation. The free market in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair. And you're also ignoring major parts of American history. The U.S. government has always been in the business of redistribution. For example, the Homestead Act distributed land. Mine claims issued during the Georgia, California, and Alaska gold rushes controlled the distribution of mineral wealth. A more recent example is the G.I. bill, which distributes education and home ownership.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
In free market capitalism, the rich get richer, the poor get richer, and everyone in between gets richer.
But we don't have anything approaching free market capitalism. Do some research on the distribution of wealth in the past 30 years. Research the composition of income taxes by corporation versus individual. Learn about the ratio of executive to worker compensation. The free market in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair. And you're also ignoring major parts of American history. The U.S. government has always been in the business of redistribution. For example, the Homestead Act distributed land. Mine claims issued during the Georgia, California, and Alaska gold rushes controlled the distribution of mineral wealth. A more recent example is the G.I. bill, which distributes education and home ownership.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Do some research on the distribution of wealth in the past 30 years. Research the composition of income taxes by corporation versus individual. Learn about the ratio of executive to worker compensation. The free market in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair.
And the answer to all of that is better conservatives - not better collectivists.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The U.S. government has always been in the business of redistribution. For example, the Homestead Act distributed land. Mine claims issued during the Georgia, California, and Alaska gold rushes controlled the distribution of mineral wealth. A more recent example is the G.I. bill, which distributes education and home ownership.
Except that the exploitation of that largess was left up to rugged individualism. The individuals themselves actually had to go out with an ax and a shovel and take advantage of it via their own efforts. As far as the GI Bill goes - it did absolutely nothing except begin the hyper inflation of higher education costs. Those WWII veterans who did not take advantage of the GI Bill (which was most of them) did just as well as those who did, if not better.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Do some research on the distribution of wealth in the past 30 years. Research the composition of income taxes by corporation versus individual. Learn about the ratio of executive to worker compensation. The free market in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair.
And the answer to all of that is better conservatives - not better collectivists.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
The U.S. government has always been in the business of redistribution. For example, the Homestead Act distributed land. Mine claims issued during the Georgia, California, and Alaska gold rushes controlled the distribution of mineral wealth. A more recent example is the G.I. bill, which distributes education and home ownership.
Except that the exploitation of that largess was left up to rugged individualism. The individuals themselves actually had to go out with an ax and a shovel and take advantage of it via their own efforts. As far as the GI Bill goes - it did absolutely nothing except begin the hyper inflation of higher education costs. Those WWII veterans who did not take advantage of the GI Bill (which was most of them) did just as well as those who did, if not better.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Those WWII veterans who did not take advantage of the GI Bill (which was most of them) did just as well as those who did, if not better.
Riiiggghhhttt.