THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[f.sciarrillo]

Sorry, Johnny, but I don't think you are down the middle at all.

[songsmith]

Based on what?

[f.sciarrillo]

Just going by your constant stance on anything left. The way I look at down the middle is taking things from both sides, and making a compromise. You tend to take one side and keep it that way. I have yet to see you say anything bad about the left, and practically everything you say is a knock to anything right. Or am I just reading you wrong? Which is a possibility.

[songsmith]

Yes, you are reading me wrong. I am a gun-owner. I want to reform welfare and SocSec, but not eliminate it. I think undocumented immigrants should be deported. I drive a pickup truck, wear camo baseball caps, bass-fish, live in manufactured housing, and proudly come from a rural upbringing. I nearly always (but not ALWAYS) vote Republican for local offices.
I'm only as liberal as the wing-nuts force me to be. I listen to alot of rightwing media, and that makes me want to run as far away from THAT warped version of conservatism as I can. I've been registered Independent (with a capital "I") since the Reagan era.
Don't mistake my disgust for extremism as liberalism. I am simply embarrassed and repelled by talkshow-inspired extremism and militant Libertarianism, which I believe to be fatally flawed, and patently stupid. I refuse to allow the dialogue to be destroyed by self-importance and authoritarianism, and will continue to hold that nonsense up to the ridicule it deserves.
Having given the matter HUGE amounts of thought and examination, I don't adhere to any religion. I don't owe anyone any respect they don't give me on it, either. If that's a problem, too bad.
I don't believe rich people automatically deserve more riches and power. I don't believe in unrestricted capitalism anymore than in unrestricted communism. Bernie Madoff deserves to be in prison, and a whole lot of bankers should join him.
I don't believe Fox News is fair and balanced, and I think the conservative media is fully and completely controlled, to take advantage of it's fans, fans who are open to mind-control in the same way the religious are.

If these things make me liberal, okay, maybe I am.

[songsmith]

I forgot to say, ucjoe's presence here makes me look ultra-liberal in comparison. Like I said, I'm only as liberal as the wing-nuts force me to be.

[bassist_25]

My point is that a vast majority of the rich got there by sacrafice and investment and ownership of capital (and Im sure a bit of luck)...

Changed it for you. Wealth is created though investment of capital, not through wages and salaries. In its purest sense, wealth creation has nothing to do with hardwork. Not being a Marxist here - just stating what years of supported economic theory says.

[4:33]

This thread delivered all the way to Page 50.

Congrats, Keith!

Fight on, Gladiators...

[lonewolf]

My point is that a vast majority of the rich got there by sacrafice and investment and ownership of capital (and Im sure a bit of luck)...

Changed it for you. Wealth is created though investment of capital, not through wages and salaries. In its purest sense, wealth creation has nothing to do with hardwork. Not being a Marxist here - just stating what years of supported economic theory says.

So I didn't have to bust my balls to get all that capital together?

Geez Paul, I wish you had told me that 25 years ago...I wouldn't have had to work so damned hard and drive around in an Escort wagon.

[Hawk]

However a Libertarian who calls himself pragmatic seems to imply that you recognise some flaws that Joe does not recognize with pure Libertarianism ? BTW I have fun pointing out some of those flaws to Joe.

Try opening your eyes to the endless flaws in your government once in a while. The only flaws you think you see are those your tainted by your liberal, limited mind. You think people keeping their money and making their own decisions is a flaw. I see that as approaching utopia.

@ Lonewolf. I do realize that there will never be a libertarian world in my lifetime. Any movement towards economic and personal freedom is a positive.

No government can be perfect because it is run by people and no people are perfect. Libertarianism requires perfect people to succeed. From the leaders to the laborers. Utopia would have no poor people.

I recognise the flaws with a republic democracy. I like a two party system where the left and the right have to compromise. Compromise has been the way since the constitution was written. Compromise is a way to keep from having a dictator (like the Nazis with Hitler). The republic is a way to stifle the tyranny of the majority.

Unfortunately big money IS a way to influence the leaders and more so now than ever before. That's right Joe, I don't like Soros' influence any more than I dislike the Koch brothers influence. You seem to love the big money people in that you don't have a problem with big money influence when they agree with you. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Congress and the president are working for the businesses who have the money because that's the key to re-election. I believe Obama caved to the insurance industry by not getting everything he should have with health care. The fact that the insurance industry is not subject to anti trust laws sucks.

We have a system of laws. They for the most part arose out of a perceived need. The government is supposed to enforce these laws. Don't get upset when the government enforces the laws. Do some research on how / why a given law came into existence.

The federal government vs. 50 state governments. For many things, one is better than 50 different ones.



BTW we already had the argument about the deregulation of drugs and whether it would increase usage. I believe it would, you believe it would not.

Do you recognise the ability for racism to flourish with the introduction of race based discrimination in the private sector IS a flaw with Libertarianism ?

[f.sciarrillo]

How do you explain Soros giving so much to the liberals? It isn't just businesses, Bill.

[songsmith]

How do you explain the Koch Brothers propping up the Tea Party, Heritage Foundation, etc? It seem the ONLY time talkshow conservatives have a problem with political finance, it's when it's not on the conservative side. This is due 100% to... you guessed it... constant reference on rightwing media.
The Tea Party, and indeed, modern militant conservatism would not exist without the influence of right-wing opinion-based media. Let's go back to the Reagan era, when rich people paid taxes, and wing-nuts simply burned rock & roll records.

[Banned]

[ I like a two party system where the left and the right have to compromise.





We have a system of laws. They for the most part arose out of a perceived need. The government is supposed to enforce these laws. Don't get upset when the government enforces the laws. Do some research on how / why a given law came into existence.

The federal government vs. 50 state governments. For many things, one is better than 50 different ones.

The government is making unconstitutional laws for your needs. Your laws for your needs are bankrupting the country.

Why not a three or four or five party system? Many other countries have multiple political parties. Why not more choices?

Why is 1 better than 50? It leaves no room of margin of error. If they make a mistake, it affects us all. If one state makes a mistake, there are 49 other states to move to.

The Constitution grants the fed govt very few rights. The majority of rights are reserved for the states and the people. The Constitution realized that 50 is way better than 1.

[Banned]

Ron Paul has a plan to cut the budget by $1 Trillion.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z1b2aMmbbo

He wants to eliminate 5 Cabinet level agencies!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/1 ... _news_blog

Now we're talking!

[lonewolf]

The federal government vs. 50 state governments. For many things, one is better than 50 different ones.

I couldn't disagree with you more. 1 is better than 50 only for a few things.

A bunch of people smarter than you or me or Obama spent a lot of time, effort and compromise sorting those few things out. When they were done, they wrote them into the Constitution.

Then, along came a socialist who thought he knew better and, armed with both houses of Congress and the full force of the US military, extorted the Supreme Court into submission. That day, they threw the Constitution into the fire and we haven't had one since.

Now, we are paying for it. Wait! No! We aren't paying for it at all! Excuse my oversight. We, greedy, spoiled-rotten baby-boomers aren't paying for a damned thing. We are deferring the costs of our many failed social experiments on to later generations.

Do you know what that makes us baby-boomers? Nothing but sad, pathetic spoiled little BUMS.

[waydowneast]

im voting for ron paul.

[bassist_25]

My point is that a vast majority of the rich got there by sacrafice and investment and ownership of capital (and Im sure a bit of luck)...

Changed it for you. Wealth is created though investment of capital, not through wages and salaries. In its purest sense, wealth creation has nothing to do with hardwork. Not being a Marxist here - just stating what years of supported economic theory says.

So I didn't have to bust my balls to get all that capital together?

Geez Paul, I wish you had told me that 25 years ago...I wouldn't have had to work so damned hard and drive around in an Escort wagon.

The amplification of that wealth was not a result of your wages or salary. You did work hard for the investment capital, but the gains of that capital was not a result of labor input. And doncha be dissing Escort wagons, Jeff!

For the record, I don't have a problem with people making money from investment. I just want to reiterate that wealth is not created through salaries and wages (i.e., what we generally term "work").

[songsmith]

[The government is making unconstitutional laws for your needs. Your laws for your needs are bankrupting the country.
.

The conservative-stacked Supreme Court determines constitutionality, not opinion-based entertainment. If these horrible safety-net programs were truly unconstitutional, they'd have been gone by now, a la Citizens United v. FEC.
The reports of the end of the United States of America have been greatly exaggerated. However, there's still a possibility of Third World status, if corporate corruption stays at current fever-pitch. Globalization of commerce has divided us into two camps. One who believes Americans should accept the low/high wages and class warfare of other countries to be competitive , and one who thinks a strong American middle class has made us the world leader. We take care of our own here, and America became far more dominant AFTER FDR.

[lonewolf]

[
Down the middle, eh? I don't think so. Marxist? Nah...its not coherent and structured enough for that. How does populist-statist sound?

EDIT: Show me in the 2' thick tax code (or anywhere else) where they made it an obligation for companies to provide jobs.

Yes, down the middle. That is my assessment, and my political stance. You may attempt to define me, but it carries no water outside your own little world. I make my definitions, as I have stated many, many times, and I will never accept hard-right definitions of anything from constitutionality to whether the sky is up. From way over there on the right, the middle looks like the left.Now, in the same 2-feet-thick tax code, show me where it says more wealth equals less taxation, yet that is indeed, the case. Show me where it says that CEO's should receive their pay in whatever way is taxed the least, but labor should not. Show me where it specifically says the bulk of the tax burden should be on the middle-class. Where the tax code says the secretary in the steno-pool should pay a larger percentage than Warren Buffett?
Yeah, I didn't think so.

The tax code is full of instances where the result is more wealth equals less taxation--at least by rate. The main ones are capital gains and qualified dividend income. When you look at total tax paid, it doesn't even come close--upper income people pay for almost everything, as shown below.

I don't think the tax code has any instructons for private sector compensation, except how to tax it. The one example of the secretary in the steno-pool...they probably pay a higher rate because their earned income is above the 15% that her boss pays on dividends and long term capital gains distributions. That reflects a pretty decent income level to pay more than 15% on earned income. I can assure you that this is the exception, not the rule, since most secretaries don't make enough to exceed the 15% rate.

Show me anything other than your post that says that the bulk of the tax burden in on the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office shows that the top 10% of earners pay around 70% of federal income taxes. Of course, I'm a little skeptical of that since the data comes from the Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... 50480226/1[/url]

There! I answered all your questions! You should try it sometime.

My solution? Scrap the tax code and replace it with a revenue-neutral flat tax with an income exemption equal to the defined poverty level.

[lonewolf]

Changed it for you. Wealth is created though investment of capital, not through wages and salaries. In its purest sense, wealth creation has nothing to do with hardwork. Not being a Marxist here - just stating what years of supported economic theory says.

So I didn't have to bust my balls to get all that capital together?

Geez Paul, I wish you had told me that 25 years ago...I wouldn't have had to work so damned hard and drive around in an Escort wagon.

The amplification of that wealth was not a result of your wages or salary. You did work hard for the investment capital, but the gains of that capital was not a result of labor input. And doncha be dissing Escort wagons, Jeff!

For the record, I don't have a problem with people making money from investment. I just want to reiterate that wealth is not created through salaries and wages (i.e., what we generally term "work").

I absolutely agree about the salaries and wages. I always said you can't get rich working for somebody else.

I disagree about the hard work part especially in real estate investing and rentals. Its called "sweat equity." See if you can find that term in a text book somewhere.

Sure, hard work is not always necessary, but show me somebody wealthy who once drove an Escort and I'll show you somebody who probably worked pretty damned hard.

Every Escort I ever saw rusted across the bottom of the rear panel in short order.

[Banned]

If I did not work hard for 27 years for my salary (at my last job), where would I have gotten any money to invest? I was born into a poor farm family with 7 children. I moved here in debt 27 years ago.

My hard work led to the wages which led to the investments. Have to disagree with you Paul.

[Hawk]

How do you explain Soros giving so much to the liberals? It isn't just businesses, Bill.

Bill: " I don't like Soros' influence..." Can I be anymore explicit ?

[Hawk]

[ I like a two party system where the left and the right have to compromise.





We have a system of laws. They for the most part arose out of a perceived need. The government is supposed to enforce these laws. Don't get upset when the government enforces the laws. Do some research on how / why a given law came into existence.

The federal government vs. 50 state governments. For many things, one is better than 50 different ones.

The government is making unconstitutional laws for your needs. Your laws for your needs are bankrupting the country.

Why not a three or four or five party system? Many other countries have multiple political parties. Why not more choices?

Why is 1 better than 50? It leaves no room of margin of error. If they make a mistake, it affects us all. If one state makes a mistake, there are 49 other states to move to.

The Constitution grants the fed govt very few rights. The majority of rights are reserved for the states and the people. The Constitution realized that 50 is way better than 1.

Sorry Joe, but article 1 section 8 says otherwise.

I don't care how many political parties we have. Gennerally everyone is lumped into left or right.

Why don't you discuss everything I wrote. Are you afraid ?

Do you recognise the ability for racism to flourish with the introduction of race based discrimination in the private sector IS a flaw with Libertarianism ?

[Hawk]

im voting for ron paul.

Very Cool ! Thanks ! A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote and it won't go against Obama ....

Do you know Ron Paul is okay with the proliferation of raced based discrimination in the private sector ?

[Hawk]

The federal government vs. 50 state governments. For many things, one is better than 50 different ones.

I couldn't disagree with you more. 1 is better than 50 only for a few things.

A bunch of people smarter than you or me or Obama spent a lot of time, effort and compromise sorting those few things out. When they were done, they wrote them into the Constitution.

Then, along came a socialist who thought he knew better and, armed with both houses of Congress and the full force of the US military, extorted the Supreme Court into submission. That day, they threw the Constitution into the fire and we haven't had one since.

Now, we are paying for it. Wait! No! We aren't paying for it at all! Excuse my oversight. We, greedy, spoiled-rotten baby-boomers aren't paying for a damned thing. We are deferring the costs of our many failed social experiments on to later generations.

Do you know what that makes us baby-boomers? Nothing but sad, pathetic spoiled little BUMS.

Needes arise, they are constitutional. Just like the bank that Jefferson himself complained was unconstitutional when Washington was president. Then when Jefferson became president he realized it WAS a necessity. Then he was for it. he kept it before it bacame constitutional. Only later was it deemed constitutional. Get it ? That's how it works, always has since day one.

[Banned]

Why don't you discuss everything I wrote. Are you afraid ?

Because you don't. You ignore most of my questions, yet you cry like a baby when your stupid points are not all addressed. Your points are so asinine that it would make me physically ill to actually address them all.

If you want to start answering questions, look at a question I asked you about Obama lying about knowing about Fast and Furious. He said he did not know about till after May, like Holder said. Yet CNN has him on tape talking about it in March. He lied Bill, and American citizens died from those guns. Did you thorough investigation discover this?