• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 312 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,080
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Back in 1981...
Great post Alpe!

However, if the filthy rich did open a history book their reply to those in poverty would be "let them eat cake". :p

I have to say, as an outsider now (I moved from Atlanta back to Australia last year), I can't help but think how lucky I was to be able to leave the US. I am highly educated (PhD) and have more than 10 years of post-doctoral experience. Despite this, when I left the US my house was in foreclosure, my life savings had been wiped out, and I had about $30k in credit card debt.

Why? Because my wife got really sick and needed a liver transplant. Despite having health coverage through my employer, we were still out of pocket about $12k/year, and eventually the hospital bills wiped us out. When I was layed off at the beginning of last year because of the economic downturn (and consequently lost my health insurance) we had no choice but to evacuate, and luckily I am an Australian citizen. In Australia I get taxed a lot more, but with socialized health care amongst other things, my wife and I can live quite comfortably.

As Alpe stated, the "trickle down economy" theory has been debunked time and time again. Without the majority of the population having money to spend, the entire economy will grind to a halt. If one rich person has an extra $1million due to tax breaks, is he going to spend more than a thousand people with an extra $1k? Of course he isn't.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile, Obama released the long form of his birth certificate. We might hope this will shut up zealots and idiots like Trump, but don't count on it. They'll latch on to something else, and I'm sure there will be a faction of them that say this document is forged.

The President is right, the entire thing was just silliness and he seems like the only voice of reason at this time.
in my opinion he shouldn't have released it at all. doing so just gives in to the nut crowd that thinks that it's a real issue, and they'll call it a victory that he did so or a fraud.

it's better to ignore the idiots.
 
Apr 27, 2011
378
0
0
I don't really like Obama, like a lot of people! He's too right for the left and too left for the right! But yeah, as a Socialist I see him as being too right! :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
When was the last tax cut?? Maybe I missed something?
It was during the tenure of the greatest failure of a president in the history of the country..you know, under W. Those tax cuts for the top 10% sure are doing their job of creating jobs like we were promised when they were extended. Scott, if you cannot look at the data provided and see that 400 people making more than 50% of the population as problematic, I am not sure what to tell you. If you think they amassed that wealth through only honest means, I am not sure what to tell you? If you think continuing to lick their a$$ clean for them is the answer, I am not sure what to tell you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
benpounder said:
Obviously if the briber is on your side, then they are in a righteous fight for righteousness, and when the bribee is on your side they are in a righteous fight for righteousness.

What are you man, an imbecile? Rules don't apply to those convinced of their righteousness.
Thanks for the drive by.

As an imbecile I was trying to point out that they are both bad. You see, being an imbecile, I believe that both the political class who accepts the corporate money AND the corporate class who purchases favor of the political class have corrupted the system.

But you wouldn't know that unless you had read some of the back and forth. So thanks for commenting (and offering the insult) without knowing what was being discussed. It adds much to the dialogue.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
It was during the tenure of the greatest failure of a president in the history of the country..you know, under W. Those tax cuts for the top 10% sure are doing their job of creating jobs like we were promised when they were extended. Scott, if you cannot look at the data provided and see that 400 people making more than 50% of the population as problematic, I am not sure what to tell you. If you think they amassed that wealth through only honest means, I am not sure what to tell you? If you think continuing to lick their a$$ clean for them is the answer, I am not sure what to tell you?
Okay TFF. If you want to sling some mud then I'm game.

I find huge problems with this. Who wouldn't?? The top 400 don't pay top marginal rates. They are not W-2 wage earners. Raise the top marginal rate to 100% and these people will not miss a beat -HOWEVER- raising the top marginal rates will impact small business owners, S-Corp types and sole proprietors.

You want to bust the top 400... go right ahead. You'll probably only get them with capital gains increases. The problem here is, if raised too high, they will stop transacting in this country.

The Obama admin has done a horrible job of creating conditions where business feel confident it what is going to happen next month, next year, or the next five years.

On the flip side let's talk about tax increases creating jobs. What should the top rate be in your opinion? When that rate is established (now that you are Prez TFF) will it be a big surprise that the 400 you speak of will still have their wealth no matter what you do with tax policy?

I made through this post without insulting you even once. Maybe you can do the same?


EDIT: In California, from 2008 through 2010, 1.15 million jobs have left the State. During the same period Texas has added 167,000 jobs. Same economy. Care to guess why this happened?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Each time it is 100% spot on. Wow go figure.

Really? That's amazing that you know what's in the hearts and minds of anyone you disagree with. A real stunner:rolleyes:
 
Scott SoCal said:
Okay TFF. If you want to sling some mud then I'm game.

I find huge problems with this. Who wouldn't?? The top 400 don't pay top marginal rates. They are not W-2 wage earners. Raise the top marginal rate to 100% and these people will not miss a beat -HOWEVER- raising the top marginal rates will impact small business owners, S-Corp types and sole proprietors.

You want to bust the top 400... go right ahead. You'll probably only get them with capital gains increases. The problem here is, if raised too high, they will stop transacting in this country.

The Obama admin has done a horrible job of creating conditions where business feel confident it what is going to happen next month, next year, or the next five years.

On the flip side let's talk about tax increases creating jobs. What should the top rate be in your opinion? When that rate is established (now that you are Prez TFF) will it be a big surprise that the 400 you speak of will still have their wealth no matter what you do with tax policy?

I made through this post without insulting you even once. Maybe you can do the same?


EDIT: In California, from 2008 through 2010, 1.15 million jobs have left the State. During the same period Texas has added 167,000 jobs. Same economy. Care to guess why this happened?
If the filthy rich take there investments out of the country due to being taxed "too heavily" at home, it is precisely because the governments allow them to have access to such recourse. Yet the normal wage earner, who drives the consumer rates and hence the economy, would have no such opportunity.

In any case, if the business owners want to be less fiscally burdened from the state, then perhaps an incentive to do so would be to provide them tax relief through wage increases to their employers. Or if they do not do so, then they are taxed more. But, perhaps this already happens? One of the problems in the US is that employee wages have been stagnant really since the 70's and to meet the consumer demands required of the market, workers have been thus made to buy on credit, to the great benefit of the lenders.

Of course the major problem is that the lenders, the big financial banks, have built the new economy on selling credit to the masses. Financial capitalism has taken over. And now there is no alternative but to allow the imbalances to continue or else melt-down. In any case, the rich have been catered too I think sufficiently well and, frankly, if the billionaires want to leave, then it only shows how greedy and socially unconcerned they are.

The problem is how imbalanced it's all become and your post leaves us with little hope that more balance is on the way. And that the rich and the super rich don't want to be made to give anything up, or else they threaten to leave. It's not only unfair, but isn't even being a good sport.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Back in 1981 Milton Freidman, Art Laffer and David Stockman all said that if we cut taxes for the wealthy the economy would grow so much it would easily pay for the cuts "I guarantee it" Laffer said. Taxes were cut, and we ended up tripling the national debt during Reagan's terms. Wages remained flat.

When Clinton raised the taxes on the highest bracket not a single Republican voted for it, and many loudly said it would kill the economy. You know what happened after that.

Bush cut taxes for everyone, but since the wealthy have so much more money than the rest of us, they got more. His administration and the GOP at the time fought hard for less regulation as well. His argument was that it would spur growth. I don't need to tell you what happened. But I will remind you that wages remained flat here as well. Actually, they've been flat for 30 years now.

The same thing happened over a century ago with the gilded age with the Robber Barons. Same leading into the Great Depression. Only the numbers are much greater now than they were then.

Even Ben Bernacke doesn't deny that we now have a greater split in the classes than ever before in our nation's history. Greater than the gilded age, greater than the 1930's. As posted before, the bottom 40% of income earners control .039% of the nations wealth, while the top 400 citizens (the top .0000013% now have more money than the entire bottom 50%, or 150,000,000 combined, with roughly 15% of the nation now living in poverty.

At the rate we are going these numbers are going to increase. There is zero indication at all they are going to reverse, none. I'm waiting for a conservative to admit this is actually the country they want to live in. One where the top .001% are living in extreme luxury with more money than they could ever possibly spend, while the bottom 20, 30, 40% live in penury.

You might think these people would open a history book at one point, as several thousand years have told us that when all of the wealth is concentrated at the very top, governing elites have repeatedly isolated and deluded themselves until it was too late, and change was rapid, and violent.

Scott - I'm still waiting for you to tell me how you would have voted on the US House budget bill that recently passed. Yes or no.
Back in 1981 Milton Freidman, Art Laffer and David Stockman all said that if we cut taxes for the wealthy the economy would grow so much it would easily pay for the cuts "I guarantee it" Laffer said. Taxes were cut, and we ended up tripling the national debt during Reagan's terms. Wages remained flat.
What happened to the economy in the 1980's? How many jobs were created? Yes, too much money was spent but the military build up had (in this case) some positives, no?

Bush cut taxes for everyone, but since the wealthy have so much more money than the rest of us, they got more. His administration and the GOP at the time fought hard for less regulation as well. His argument was that it would spur growth. I don't need to tell you what happened. But I will remind you that wages remained flat here as well. Actually, they've been flat for 30 years now.
I'm not particularly concerned with relatively flat wages so long as inflation is under control. If companies pay more for labor then goods and services will rise in cost. Economies don't operate in a vacuum. The Bush admin made huge mistakes. Certainly we can all agree on that.

with roughly 15% of the nation now living in poverty.
And this number is on the rise and, at least part of this, is on Obama and his economic team. $5 per gallon gasoline, high energy and food costs hurt the poor more than any other class but Obama is encouraging high energy costs. Go figure.


You might think these people would open a history book at one point, as several thousand years have told us that when all of the wealth is concentrated at the very top, governing elites have repeatedly isolated and deluded themselves until it was too late, and change was rapid, and violent.
Agreed. History seems to be lost on the "I've got mine" crowd. Love them or hate them I appreciate the philanthropy Gates and Buffet (among others) are engaging in. It gives a little hope...

When Clinton raised the taxes on the highest bracket not a single Republican voted for it, and many loudly said it would kill the economy. You know what happened after that.
Are you saying that tax increases alone resulted in a good economic climate? You know that's not the whole story.

Scott - I'm still waiting for you to tell me how you would have voted on the US House budget bill that recently passed. Yes or no.
I will let you know when I finish reading it. Probably won't be today.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Okay TFF. If you want to sling some mud then I'm game.

I find huge problems with this. Who wouldn't?? The top 400 don't pay top marginal rates. They are not W-2 wage earners. Raise the top marginal rate to 100% and these people will not miss a beat -HOWEVER- raising the top marginal rates will impact small business owners, S-Corp types and sole proprietors.

You want to bust the top 400... go right ahead. You'll probably only get them with capital gains increases. The problem here is, if raised too high, they will stop transacting in this country.

The Obama admin has done a horrible job of creating conditions where business feel confident it what is going to happen next month, next year, or the next five years.

On the flip side let's talk about tax increases creating jobs. What should the top rate be in your opinion? When that rate is established (now that you are Prez TFF) will it be a big surprise that the 400 you speak of will still have their wealth no matter what you do with tax policy?

I made through this post without insulting you even once. Maybe you can do the same?


EDIT: In California, from 2008 through 2010, 1.15 million jobs have left the State. During the same period Texas has added 167,000 jobs. Same economy. Care to guess why this happened?
I didn't intend it to be insulting. Honestly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
If the filthy rich take there investments out of the country due to being taxed "too heavily" at home, it is precisely because the governments allow them to have access to such recourse. Yet the normal wage earner, who drives the consumer rates and hence the economy, would have no such opportunity.

In any case, if the business owners want to be less fiscally burdened from the state, then perhaps an incentive to do so would be to provide them tax relief through wage increases to their employers. Or if they do not do so, then they are taxed more. But, perhaps this already happens? One of the problems in the US is that employee wages have been stagnant really since the 70's and to meet the consumer demands required of the market, workers have been thus made to buy on credit, to the great benefit of the lenders.

Of course the major problem is that the lenders, the big financial banks, have built the new economy on selling credit to the masses. Financial capitalism has taken over. And now there is no alternative but to allow the imbalances to continue or else melt-down. In any case, the rich have been catered too I think sufficiently well and, frankly, if the billionaires want to leave, then it only shows how greedy and socially unconcerned they are.

The problem is how imbalanced it's all become and your post leaves us with little hope that more balance is on the way. And that the rich and the super rich don't want to be made to give anything up, or else they threaten to leave. It's not only unfair, but isn't even being a good sport.
If the filthy rich take there investments out of the country due to being taxed "too heavily" at home, it is precisely because the governments allow them to have access to such recourse. Yet the normal wage earner, who drives the consumer rates and hence the economy, would have no such opportunity.
I'm merely suggesting what they will do... I'm not saying it is right.

In any case, if the business owners want to be less fiscally burdened from the state, then perhaps an incentive to do so would be to provide them tax relief through wage increases to their employees. Or if they do not do so, then they are taxed more.
Common sense idea. This idea won't cost the govt much if any revenue as the income tax gain would likely make up for corporate tax loss. Not bad.

The problem is how imbalanced it's all become ........ And that the rich and the super rich don't want to be made to give anything up, or else they threaten to leave. It's not only unfair, but isn't even being a good sport
Agreed. I honestly don't know how you go after the top 400. Wealth confiscation is about the only way but even that is un-doable.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I'm merely suggesting what they will do... I'm not saying it is right.



Common sense idea. This idea won't cost the govt much if any revenue as the income tax gain would likely make up for corporate tax loss. Not bad.



Agreed. I honestly don't know how you go after the top 400. Wealth confiscation is about the only way but even that is un-doable.
I meant employers of course. :eek:
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
rhubroma said:
Wait, flashback to about 16 centuries ago.

In the portraiture of the late Roman Emperors there is a tendency toward abstraction, stylization and assimilation, which tends to produce the effect of a sacred icon. Emphasis was thus visually and conceptually placed upon the sacred nature of the office, and not the individual emperor or emperors who held it.

Now I'm not say that this is indicative of anything...but when one talks about "the OFFICE being larger than the man" that air of higher dimension sounds all too familiar.

However I wouldn't want this to mean that no matter who the man is, it's the president and that's it, so he's to be respected. Sounds too sovereign for my tastes in a healthy democracy. And I certainly didn't feel that way when Bush was in office for two terms, as I found there wasn't anything in the man I could respect.

I think one must earn our respect and that the presidency isn't above such individual responsibility. And that, in complete opposition with your line of thought, the dignity of the office is given to it precisely by the person who occupies it on a constantly updated basis. Otherwise the individual can use the office as an alibi to disregard many things, such as potentially the law, which every citizen is to be held accountable and judged in regards to the worthiness or lack there off of their actions and comportments. To me, this is what democracy signifies.

If anything, because the democratic leader has been given the privilege of power not by the office itself, which would be aristocratic, but because of a popular suffrage, all the more must he be scrutinized and held accountable for his behavior. If such behavior makes a breech in the decorum of being a democratic leader, then the citizens not only have the right not to respect him, but to actively seek his political downfall.

Unfortunately this rarely happens and, when it does, usually for the wrong reasons, because not caused by the popular sentiment, but by dint of a privileged and powerful oligarchy of lobbyists and plutocrats.
Yeah I set that up for you to ramble on and on and on and on. "YOUR" like the oposite of Redtreviso..."YOUR" posts go on for a page. Redtreviso likes to make it quick. He even has a good sense of humor sometimes. "YOUR" "DONT" "KNOT"

I do think that the Presidential office should always carry some respect no matter who the president is. When you disagree you just vote him out.

WoW.

I do not agree with President Obama therefore according to Hugh / Redtreviso / and a few others that I must not be down with a Black Man as President. WoW
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Yeah I set that up for you to ramble on and on and on and on. "YOUR" like the oposite of Redtreviso..."YOUR" posts go on for a page. Redtreviso likes to make it quick. He even has a good sense of humor sometimes. "YOUR" "DONT" "KNOT"

I do think that the Presidential office should always carry some respect no matter who the president is. When you disagree you just vote him out.

WoW.

I do not agree with President Obama therefore according to Hugh / Redtreviso / and a few others that I must not be down with a Black Man as President. WoW
Could be.. maybe you should amble over to freerepublic and see if you feel at home. You don't agree with President Obama? Is that just a general statement? It certainly is with freepers. Probably basically true in large swaths of where you live..
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,312
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Thanks for the drive by.
You misunderstood my comment. It was intended to be dripping in sarcasm against those so willing to blame 'the other side' while ignoring/dismissing their own side's faults.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Could be.. maybe you should amble over to freerepublic and see if you feel at home. You don't agree with President Obama? Is that just a general statement? It certainly is with freepers. Probably basically true in large swaths of where you live..
Saul Alinsky 101.

Make sure to never debate ideas. Isolate and ridicule those you oppose.

Klink, this is not original.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
benpounder said:
You misunderstood my comment. It was intended to be dripping in sarcasm against those so willing to blame 'the other side' while ignoring/dismissing their own side's faults.
I've taken my first bite of humble pie today.:eek:

I apologize.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Saul Alinsky 101.

Make sure to never debate ideas. Isolate and ridicule those you oppose.

Klink, this is not original.
There was no idea stated.. He just said he did not agree with President Obama..Not unlike . He doesn't agree to his existence. Doesn't agree with the concept of A President Obama.. Very common amongst your kind.. What is that little astroturfing outfit? OBAMA, ONE BIG A** MISTAKE AMERICA that all your kind sign facebook pages and such with? A President Obama is just a thing that is a bridge too f far for them..The whole idea just shakes their pathetic little conforming souls to the core.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""So, yeah, we have a bigger birth certificate. But those who despise the president for existing don't give a happy monkey f&^% and will continue to challenge Obama's legitimacy until he declares he is white. Otherwise, if they accepted the birth certificate and moved the &^%$ on, they'd have to deal with "issues" and use their so-called "brains."

By the way, on the way home, the same driver was bemoaning the treatment of Sarah Palin's children by the media. When the Rude Pundit pointed out how right-wingers talked about Chelsea Clinton, the driver said, "Well, she has terrible parents. And she was kind of ugly."""

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

Go Rude One..Couldn't have said it better myself..really
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,312
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I've taken my first bite of humble pie today.:eek:

I apologize.
Quite alright. I browse this side of the forum infrequently, and almost never comment. I've found it pointless to get into "discussions" with those wearing idealogical blinders. Your comment struck a note because I've had several conversations with friends that are so willing to condemn all lobbyists yet never admitting that the person being lobbied is just as dirty.
 
Glenn_Wilson said:
Yeah I set that up for you to ramble on and on and on and on. "YOUR" like the oposite of Redtreviso..."YOUR" posts go on for a page. Redtreviso likes to make it quick. He even has a good sense of humor sometimes. "YOUR" "DONT" "KNOT"

I do think that the Presidential office should always carry some respect no matter who the president is. When you disagree you just vote him out.

WoW.

I do not agree with President Obama therefore according to Hugh / Redtreviso / and a few others that I must not be down with a Black Man as President. WoW
Congratulations, Glenn, you have officially earned the first prize for the shortest attention span and least philosophically inclined on this forum, and the least curious.

PS: That would be "YOU'RE"
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
rhubroma said:
Congratulations, Glenn, you have officially earned the first prize for the shortest attention span and least philosophically inclined on this forum, and the least curious.

PS: That would be "YOU'RE"
Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it.

PS: my use of "YOUR" was on purpose that is why I used the capitalized letters and quotation marks. :eek:

Now back to my Whisky Tango Television shows. I got some boiled Crawfish to eat while WATCHEN my shows.
These days I have to do something to get my mind of the President Obama problems and oh and before I go….. YALL all know that BIRFcertificate was DOCturd don’t cha?
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it.

PS: my use of "YOUR" was on purpose that is why I used the capitalized letters and quotation marks. :eek:

Now back to my Whisky Tango Television shows. I got some boiled Crawfish to eat while WATCHEN my shows.
These days I have to do something to get my mind of the President Obama problems and oh and before I go….. YALL all know that BIRFcertificate was DOCturd don’t cha?
There really does come a point when you are who you act like.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts