Is the sacrifice going to be shared by all?

[leftysergeant]

So, what sacrifices do any of you think the wealthiest of Americans are going to have to make before the debt crisis is ironed out?

Or do you think that they have already sacrificed enough?

If so, where did you get such a strange idea?

[Cobalt]

Clearly not a loaded question in the OP.

[bikerdruid]

So, what sacrifices do any of you think the wealthiest of Americans are going to have to make before the debt crisis is ironed out?

Or do you think that they have already sacrificed enough?

If so, where did you get such a strange idea?

no.
the rich will get richer and the poor will get screwed....still*
*as opposed to 'again'.

[Puppycow]

Sacrifices are for the little people.

[leftysergeant]

Clearly not a loaded question in the OP.Sometimes that's what it takes. Maybe somewhere out there there is a Republicon who will address it. Until such time, we can all assume that they are being whiney babies looking out for their own kind, unconcerned that it will hurt others badly.

Can YOU name one sacrifice that the hedge fund drongos and the short-sellers of bonds and the derivative marketeers are making?

[stevea]

They'll be forced to move their capital offshore, and eventually their families.

[Cobalt]

Sometimes that's what it takes. Only if you're weak. Maybe somewhere out there there is a Republicon who will address it. Yes, politicians of either side are entirely concerned with anonymous internet posters and the blather they put forth. Until such time, we can all assume that they are being whiney babies looking out for their own kind, unconcerned that it will hurt others badly. Or I can assume some people on the internet just whine that other people don't do enough because goddamnit they SHOULD.


Can YOU name one sacrifice that the hedge fund drongos and the short-sellers of bonds and the derivative marketeers are making?
Nope, I pay attention to my own life and how politics affects me, not how I want other people to act.

I'm bored, so, I'll ask, what do you think they should be doing?

[Bri]

They'll be forced to move their capital offshore, and eventually their families.

Where will they go?

-Bri

[leftysergeant]

Where will they go?

-BriAnd to whom do they plan to sell their crap?

[leftysergeant]

Is there anyone or anything that you love nearly as much as you hate those who are successful and wealthy? I very much doubt it.Those who think that they are where vthey are because they are special, and thus entitled to take without giving back to society so that society can go on promoting the general welfare.

If I need to pay taxes and do without things that I have a right to expect, why don't those who have fed off the fat of society for so long?

The rich aren't creating jobs, but shriek like spanked babies that raising their taxes will kill jobs.

Sick, twisted, immature little twits, they are.

[leftysergeant]

I'm bored, so, I'll ask, what do you think they should be doing?Paying to clean up the mess they created.

[Grizzly Adams]

Removed breach of Rule 12

Those who think that they are where vthey are because they are special, and thus entitled to take without giving back to society so that society can go on promoting the general welfare.

If I need to pay taxes and do without things that I have a right to expect, why don't those who have fed off the fat of society for so long?

The rich aren't creating jobs, but shriek like spanked babies that raising their taxes will kill jobs.

Sick, twisted, immature little twits, they are.

I think that's a "no."

[Grizzly Adams]

Is the sacrifice going to be shared by all?
No, the burden will be placed on the backs of "the rich."

Do you honestly think Obama's going to propose a tax hike on anyone in the bottom 50%? 60%?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, what sacrifices do any of you think the wealthiest of Americans are going to have to make before the debt crisis is ironed out?

Or do you think that they have already sacrificed enough?

If so, where did you get such a strange idea?

What sacrifices are the middle class and poor going to make?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Those who think that they are where vthey are because they are special, and thus entitled to take without giving back to society so that society can go on promoting the general welfare.

If I need to pay taxes and do without things that I have a right to expect, why don't those who have fed off the fat of society for so long?

The rich aren't creating jobs, but shriek like spanked babies that raising their taxes will kill jobs.

Sick, twisted, immature little twits, they are.

Wait....so you're arguing that the rich don't pay any taxes?

:dl:

[theprestige]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.

Some, like leftysergeant, would have us continue the pretense. They would have us now pretend that irresponsible commitments should be deemed responsible, simply by virtue (vice?) of having been irresponsibly made. Money we used to pretend we didn't need must now be demanded.

Others might prefer to reconsider these irresponsible commitments, make responsible commitments in their place, and decide upon a level of sacrifice that is based in part on the principle that leftysergeant can't always get what he wants, regardless of how rich his neighbor is or how much he hates them.

[Neally]

Those who think that they are where vthey are because they are special, and thus entitled to take without giving back to society so that society can go on promoting the general welfare.



Paying to clean up the mess they created.There you go again with your silly, unsupported claim that they aren't paying for what they use or their fair share or for cleaning up whatever. You've been challenged to support this before and have failed. I have no doubt that you will do so again.

[Mike!]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.

Some, like leftysergeant, would have us continue the pretense. They would have us now pretend that irresponsible commitments should be deemed responsible, simply by virtue (vice?) of having been irresponsibly made. Money we used to pretend we didn't need must now be demanded.

Others might prefer to reconsider these irresponsible commitments, make responsible commitments in their place, and decide upon a level of sacrifice that is based in part on the principle that leftysergeant can't always get what he wants, regardless of how rich his neighbor is or how much he hates them.

My hero. :D

[Roadtoad]

Removed breach of Rule 12

Removed breach of Rule 12

Actually, Bob didn't dodge it at all.

Here's a reality: In owning a business, you pass on the cost of doing business to the customer. That's the way it works, and since taxes are a cost of doing business, it's the poor and middle class who will pay the taxes of the wealthy.

Bitching and whining about the "Rich" might give you an opportunity to vent, but in the end, it doesn't change a damned thing. Until people learn how business works, nothing will.

A solution might be to actually get into the game, to start a business, learn how things work, and then it might be better understood. I've had businesses, (and they've failed, unfortunately), but the lessons I've learned from them have helped alter the way we do things. Sometimes you still make mistakes. The goal is to learn from them.

As to the OP, it seems once more, we hear LS going on about the Republicans and how eeeeeevuuuulllll they are. Here's a reality: Someone voted for them. So who's evil? The Republicans, or those who voted for them?

[Roadtoad]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.

Some, like leftysergeant, would have us continue the pretense. They would have us now pretend that irresponsible commitments should be deemed responsible, simply by virtue (vice?) of having been irresponsibly made. Money we used to pretend we didn't need must now be demanded.

Others might prefer to reconsider these irresponsible commitments, make responsible commitments in their place, and decide upon a level of sacrifice that is based in part on the principle that leftysergeant can't always get what he wants, regardless of how rich his neighbor is or how much he hates them.

Nominated.

[leftysergeant]

There you go again with your silly, unsupported claim that they aren't paying for what they use or their fair share or for cleaning up whatever. You've been challenged to support this before and have failed. I have no doubt that you will do so again.I will take Warren Buffet's opinion over yours just about any day.

[leftysergeant]

Wait....so you're arguing that the rich don't pay any taxes?

As a percentage of their income, just barely.

[leftysergeant]

What sacrifices are the middle class and poor going to make?The teatards are trying to take away our Social Security so that the worthless drongos who ran us into the ground do not have to pay enough taxes to fix the mess they made.

[bikerdruid]

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.



simple.
close at least half of your foreign bases.
bring all american troops home.
employ the armed forces to improve american infrastructure and build housing for the homeless.
you would have money left over.

[leftysergeant]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.

Horse feathers. We can't afford it because some idiot thought that it was a good idea to start two wars on borrowed money and cut taxes to people who were doing nothing to improvce the ecconomy. Social Security, for example, worked just fine for longer than any of the whiney babies trying to crash the ecconomy now have been alive. All that is needed is to lift the cap on withholding taxes on wages. We could even lower the rate so that the people who actually create wealth would catch a break and still pay out the proper level of benefits.

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.

Balderdash. The useless class just got a pass so that they didn't have to chip in at a rate commensurate with what they bled out of the system. The money is there. Idiot Republicans are just refusing to take it.

Some, like leftysergeant, would have us continue the pretense. They would have us now pretend that irresponsible commitments should be deemed responsible, simply by virtue (vice?) of having been irresponsibly made. Money we used to pretend we didn't need must now be demanded.

What's this "we" garbage? Only idiot right wingers had the idea that the money wasn't needed.

Others might prefer to reconsider these irresponsible commitments, make responsible commitments in their place, and decide upon a level of sacrifice that is based in part on the principle that leftysergeant can't always get what he wants, regardless of how rich his neighbor is or how much he hates them.

If my idiot neighbor is rich because he has been using the resources that society provided for him, and at an absurdly high level, damned right he needs to pitch in a lot more than the working schlubs who actually made him rich.

[Roadtoad]

The teatards are trying to take away our Social Security so that the worthless drongos who ran us into the ground do not have to pay enough taxes to fix the mess they made.

You do understand, don't you, that we live in a representative democracy? You do understand that we can choose our leaders? You do understand that we can hold them accountable for their actions, don't you? You do understand that if they act against our interests, we can vote them out, and change direction? You do understand that as Americans, we are responsible for informing ourselves as to what our politicians are doing while in office? You do understand that we're supposed to examine the facts and vote accordingly?

You do understand, don't you, that most of the Tea Party folks are just regular working stiffs? You do understand that while there are wealthy folks bankrolling the Tea Party, it's actual power and authority comes from regular voters like us? You do understand that if you want to change the direction the Tea Party is taking, or to stop it altogether, you have a responsibility to help inform them? You do understand, don't you, that insulting and degrading people who might well have been deceived -- and likely have been -- will not only prevent them from examining the facts, but will quite possibly force them to dig in their heels even deeper and drive them further down the rabbit hole?

Just want to be sure you get it. You sure don't seem to.

[leftysergeant]

You do understand, don't you, that we live in a representative democracy? You do understand that we can choose our leaders? You do understand that we can hold them accountable for their actions, don't you? You do understand that if they act against our interests, we can vote them out, and change direction?

If the thugs haven't fixed the voting machines.

You do understand that as Americans, we are responsible for informing ourselves as to what our politicians are doing while in office? You do understand that we're supposed to examine the facts and vote accordingly?

Most people do not get the facts because Fox Goons and NewsCorp control most of the news outlets.

You do understand, don't you, that most of the Tea Party folks are just regular working stiffs? You do understand that while there are wealthy folks bankrolling the Tea Party, it's actual power and authority comes from regular voters like us? You do understand that if you want to change the direction the Tea Party is taking, or to stop it altogether, you have a responsibility to help inform them?

I'm referring to the whiney babies that they elected and the radical dirtbags among them, like that idiot Kostric as tards because there is a hard core of total jerks who give the movement its drive in the public eye.

You do understand, don't you, that insulting and degrading people who might well have been deceived -- and likely have been -- will not only prevent them from examining the facts, but will quite possibly force them to dig in their heels even deeper and drive them further down the rabbit hole?

Just want to be sure you get it. You sure don't seem to.

You don't seem to get that I reserve my greatest anger for scum like the Koch bothers and the Walton larvae and that orange-skinned drunkard with the big gavel and the other morons diddling with the very structure of government.

[bikerdruid]

You do understand, don't you, that we live in a representative democracy? You do understand that we can choose our leaders? You do understand that we can hold them accountable for their actions, don't you? You do understand that if they act against our interests, we can vote them out, and change direction? You do understand that as Americans, we are responsible for informing ourselves as to what our politicians are doing while in office? You do understand that we're supposed to examine the facts and vote accordingly?

You do understand, don't you, that most of the Tea Party folks are just regular working stiffs? You do understand that while there are wealthy folks bankrolling the Tea Party, it's actual power and authority comes from regular voters like us? You do understand that if you want to change the direction the Tea Party is taking, or to stop it altogether, you have a responsibility to help inform them? You do understand, don't you, that insulting and degrading people who might well have been deceived -- and likely have been -- will not only prevent them from examining the facts, but will quite possibly force them to dig in their heels even deeper and drive them further down the rabbit hole?

Just want to be sure you get it. You sure don't seem to.

wow...not much into condescension, eh?
you seem to live in a world where the fantasy of democracy is a reality.
i'll bet that there are lots of fluffy bunnies there.

if voting could actually change anything, it would be outlawed.
voters don't control government, the bankers and lobbyists do.

[Roadtoad]

You don't seem to get that I reserve my greatest anger for scum like the Koch bothers and the Walton larvae and that orange-skinned drunkard with the big gavel and the other morons diddling with the very structure of government.

[Facepalm/]

One more time...

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AVERAGE CITIZEN TO INFORM HIMSELF OF THE FACTS! IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN TO EXAMINE WHAT A PROPOSED POLICY WILL ACTUALLY DO FOR AND TO THE COUNTRY!

You can bitch and whine about the Koch Brothers, or Sam Walton's loinfruit all you you like. THE ONLY GET ONE DAMNED VOTE! At some point, it is the responsibility of CITIZENS to inform themselves and learn what the hell is happening, and why. It is the responsibility of CITIZENS to vote accordingly.

[TragicMonkey]

I just want to say that that old timey picture of the Capitalist system would make a fantastically awesome wedding cake design.

[Bri]

At some point, it is the responsibility of CITIZENS to inform themselves and learn what the hell is happening, and why. It is the responsibility of CITIZENS to vote accordingly.

Unfortunatley, the average citizen trusts FOX News to inform themselves and learn what the hell is happening, and why.

-Bri

[Roadtoad]

Unfortunatley, the average citizen trusts FOX News to inform themselves and learn what the hell is happening, and why.

-Bri

If you refuse to examine all the facts, are you truly a citizen?

I don't agree with most folks here. But, dammit, I didn't come here because I agreed with most folks here. I came here to learn. If you're too damned lazy to learn, then you damned well deserve the government you get. Problem is, the rest of us get it, too.

[Neally]

I will take Warren Buffet's opinion over yours just about any day.As expected, no support for your assertions.

As a percentage of their income, just barely.As expected, no support for your assertions.


The useless class just got a pass so that they didn't have to chip in at a rate commensurate with what they bled out of the system. As expected, no support for your assertions.

If my idiot neighbor is rich because he has been using the resources that society provided for him, and at an absurdly high level, damned right he needs to pitch in a lot more than the working schlubs who actually made him rich.As expected, no support for your assertions.

The wealthy do not use more than what they pay in. You have failed numerous times to support your claim that they do.

[Bri]

If you refuse to examine all the facts, are you truly a citizen?

I don't agree with most folks here. But, dammit, I didn't come here because I agreed with most folks here. I came here to learn. If you're too damned lazy to learn, then you damned well deserve the government you get. Problem is, the rest of us get it, too.

I get what you're saying, but the vast majority of Americans don't spend as much time as you do to get your information from multiple sources, particularly sources that regularly disagree with their current viewpoint. So I guess from your point of view they're not "truly citizens" yet they're still allowed to vote.

-Bri

[bikerdruid]

I just want to say that that old timey picture of the Capitalist system would make a fantastically awesome wedding cake design.
it would, indeed!:D
heck, "let them eat cake."

[leftysergeant]

The wealthy do not use more than what they pay in. You have failed numerous times to support your claim that they do.

Actually, they do.

BP has used a hell of a lot more than what they have paid for, and their stock holders pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes, leaving working people to make up the difference in the cost of cleaning up the goo the oil volcano dumped on us, while working people are making less because of the damage that was done.

That is just plain stupid.

[Roadtoad]

Actually, they do.

BP has used a hell of a lot more than what they have paid for, and their stock holders pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes, leaving working people to make up the difference in the cost of cleaning up the goo the oil volcano dumped on us, while working people are making less because of the damage that was done.

That is just plain stupid.

Evidence?

[leftysergeant]

Evidence?How much have the BP swine paid in corporate taxes? How much of their income do BP shareholders pay in income taxes, compared to the deck hand on the boat that used to harvest shrimp down-current from the oil volcano?

And how much of their income do the shareholders in Haliburton pay in income taxes, compared to what the working people they murdered used to pay?

Corporations are privatizing the profits from our natural resources, and sticking us with the cost of dealing with the poisons they release into the environment in the process.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The teatards are trying to take away our Social Security...

False.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How much have the BP swine paid in corporate taxes? How much of their income do BP shareholders pay in income taxes, compared to the deck hand on the boat that used to harvest shrimp down-current from the oil volcano?

How do you know the "deck hand on the boat that used to harvest shrimp down-current from the oil volcano" isn't a BP shareholder?

You have no idea how corporations work, do you?

[Roadtoad]

wow...not much into condescension, eh?
you seem to live in a world where the fantasy of democracy is a reality.
i'll bet that there are lots of fluffy bunnies there.

if voting could actually change anything, it would be outlawed.
voters don't control government, the bankers and lobbyists do.

And you talk to me about condescension?

I understand the ideal doesn't always connect to the reality, but in this case, the main reason it doesn't is because of the lack of involvement on the voters. Considering in some elections here in Sacramento County, the voter turnout is somewhere around 30%, it's no surprise the bankers and lobbyists have an inordinate amount of control.

[geni]

[Facepalm/]

One more time...

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AVERAGE CITIZEN TO INFORM HIMSELF OF THE FACTS! IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN TO EXAMINE WHAT A PROPOSED POLICY WILL ACTUALLY DO FOR AND TO THE COUNTRY!

Dude less than 1% of the population can make an informed desscission on their brand of washing power and now you are expecting informed decisions on the nation's finances?

[Roadtoad]

Dude less than 1% of the population can make an informed desscission on their brand of washing power and now you are expecting informed decisions on the nation's finances?

I put greater import on the nation's finances than I do whether my tighty whiteys are bright.

[Neally]

Actually, they do.

BP has used a hell of a lot more than what they have paid for, and their stock holders pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes, leaving working people to make up the difference in the cost of cleaning up the goo the oil volcano dumped on us, while working people are making less because of the damage that was done.

1.BP paid for the cleanup.
2. BP is ONE corporation. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay.
3. BP stockholders are ONE group of stockholders. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay.

How much have the BP swine paid in corporate taxes? How much of their income do BP shareholders pay in income taxes, compared to the deck hand on the boat that used to harvest shrimp down-current from the oil volcano?
BP is ONE corporation. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay. BP stockholders are ONE group of stockholders. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay.
And how much of their income do the shareholders in Haliburton pay in income taxes, compared to what the working people they murdered used to pay?What US citizens has Haliburton murdered? What were the taxes that those murdered citizens paid? You are off on another emotional, irrational rant.

Corporations are privatizing the profits from our natural resources, and sticking us with the cost of dealing with the poisons they release into the environment in the process.Again, wild claim. No evidence.

[jj]

Clearly not a loaded question in the OP.


Oh, I must disagree, it's very loaded, after all insinuating that the people who got bailed out by the government, with absolutely no help accruing to the rest of us, are suffering at all. They didn't suffer from their bad management, from their inventive, bubble-based funds, or from the fact they could have lost their shirts but for the treasury being authorized to bail them out.

WHAT suffering?

[geni]

I put greater import on the nation's finances than I do whether my tighty whiteys are bright.

However to all intents and purposes what passes for your decision making process will be guided by much the same type of PR people.

The reality is that the Koch brothers and various other right wing groups are having a significant influence on the American people through the US of very good PR people. The idea that the average citizen has a chance of making an informed decision in such an environment is lets face it utterly laughable.

Indeed at least with washing powderer you could in theory track down one of the handful of university profs who understands the full difference between the brands. But in politics not a chance.

The supposed facts you think you have, the logic you are applying even the language you use has all been put through the ringer by PR people. Not a thing you can do about it mind.

[jj]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.

Yep, but I'm surprised you'd admit that the military budget as it currently sits, along with the Bush-Era tax cuts, were overcommitment. But, yes, they were quite a bit of overcommitment in terms of raising the deficit so that things would get really bad on down the road after Bush.

Given the "borrow and spend" of the last 10 years now, it's time to get back to "tax and spend" and tax reasonably, not discriminating against anyone. What's more, all of the bailout that didn't reach the common folk needs to be repaid pronto.

[Cobalt]

As a percentage of their income, just barely.
You do know other forms of taxation exist, right?

Yep, but I'm surprised you'd admit that the military budget as it currently sits, along with the Bush-Era tax cuts, were overcommitment. But, yes, they were quite a bit of overcommitment in terms of raising the deficit so that things would get really bad on down the road after Bush.

Given the "borrow and spend" of the last 10 years now, it's time to get back to "tax and spend" and tax reasonably, not discriminating against anyone. What's more, all of the bailout that didn't reach the common folk needs to be repaid pronto.

Do you get a good deal on that straw?

[Skeptic]

If I need to pay taxes and do without things that I have a right to expect,

That's your problem right there. When your view of life is that you have a right to expect from the government to give you stuff -- and I mean well beyond safety and the rule of law, but things from housing to healthcare -- naturally the government spends more and more on such programs and creates more and more such entitlements.

Since no thought is given where the money to pay for all that is to come from -- it's things you DESERVE, after all! -- the result is eventual massive debt and/or an attempt to simply take from more and more people more and more. The current bogeyman is "the rich".

But if the rich leave or their money is taken, that simply pauperizes the country even more, and when the money extorted this way is gone, as it quickly will be, that's the end of everything you "have a right to expect". This is what happened in evety "socialist" (that is, communist) country.

[Skeptic]

Bitching and whining about the "Rich" might give you an opportunity to vent, but in the end, it doesn't change a damned thing. Until people learn how business works, nothing will.

The problem with Lefty's brand of socialism (as opposed to other more reasonable ones), is that people who have absolutely no idea how the real economic world works declare they have the one true solution, and every other economic suggestion is the work of the devil (or the "facist republicans" or "pig-like rich" or "stupid rednecks" or something). They're like the Christian Scientists of economics.

I, for one, if forced to choose, would take the economic advice of one of those dumb, brainwashed rednecks Lefty despises, over lefty's advice. Mr. Redneck probably at least has some idea how businesses or the economy are run -- he might run one himself -- so his advice is based on experience and some realism. Lefty clearly has not the foggiest idea how the economy works.

[Skeptic]

It's interesting how the "Champions of the people" consider the people to be brainwashed idiots who cannot make an informed decision about anything, thus requiring their betters to choose for them.

Of course that's how they view the people when the people disagree with them. When the people do something they like, it's "the people have spoken", "a new spirit across the land", etc., etc.

[Skeptic]

BP is ONE corporation. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay.

If that were true the capitalist world would have collapsed long ago. But in reality capitalism and its corporations made life much better for many people. It is the socialist world -- where the government made sure nobody, God forbid, make any money since it's unfair to the people -- that unsurprisingly impoverished nations.

[Skeptic]

if voting could actually change anything, it would be outlawed.
voters don't control government, the bankers and lobbyists do.

Ah, so THAT is why you keep telling us one-party dictatorships like Cuba are "liberated".

[jj]

You do know other forms of taxation exist, right?



Do you get a good deal on that straw?

It amazes me the delusions that the right will accept in order to push their agenda of being mean to the unfortunate.

Go look at the numbers. Lose the Baby Busy tax cuts, lose the war costs, and wow, we're back into reasonble territory.

But it's interesting how nobody wants to admit that we did this to ourselves by giving the class I belong to an unneeded break, and then spending a lot of money on pure destruction, destruction that reduces both our GNP and the world's.

By my atheist, math-understanding view, that's pretty much as evil as one can get.

[jj]

But if the rich leave or their money is taken, that simply pauperizes the country even more, and when the money extorted this way is gone, as it quickly will be, that's the end of everything you "have a right to expect". This is what happened in evety "socialist" (that is, communist) country.

Well, then we should be really safe, since we're less socialist (and nothing near communist) than literally any other first-world country, a lot of which are doing a heck of a lot better than we are.

It's very interesting, the USA is the only first-world country that can't afford medical care for its citizens.

But we have a heck of a good army, about 1/3 of it private and belonging to the same people who you're insinuating will leave if they have to pay a fair share.

[theprestige]

Yep, but I'm surprised you'd admit that the military budget as it currently sits, along with the Bush-Era tax cuts, were overcommitment. But, yes, they were quite a bit of overcommitment in terms of raising the deficit so that things would get really bad on down the road after Bush.
I'll see your "fiscal mismanagement over the past 10 years that I can conveniently blame on The Opposition Faction (tm)", and raise you "fiscal mismanagement over the past 150+ years by Every Faction Ever (tm)".

Are you here to lay blame or solve problems?

[jj]

I'll see your "fiscal mismanagement over the past 10 years that I can conveniently blame on The Opposition Faction (tm)", and raise you "fiscal mismanagement over the past 150+ years by Every Faction Ever (tm)".

Are you here to lay blame or solve problems?

The first step in recovery is to admit the problem.

[leftysergeant]

That's your problem right there. When your view of life is that you have a right to expect from the government to give you stuff -- and I mean well beyond safety and the rule of law, but things from housing to healthcare -- naturally the government spends more and more on such programs and creates more and more such entitlements.

I signed a contract that entitled me to free health care and a pension, including a tax-free disability payment. Not even half of the drongos screwing with the ecconomy in congress are capable of doing what I did to earn that pension. Look at the loudest voice of the cry-baby faction of wrong-wingers, Eric Cantor. He had a total swooning episode because a stray round broke a window in the building where his office is.

And then that bat-crap crazy Bachmann turns around and says thAt it is better to cut benefits to people like me so that sorry little half-men like Cantor don't have to pay taxes on the money they make shorting T-bills.

And these idiots call themselves the party of national defense...

Schizo, the lot of them.

Since no thought is given where the money to pay for all that is to come from -- it's things you DESERVE, after all! -- the result is eventual massive debt and/or an attempt to simply take from more and more people more and more. The current bogeyman is "the rich".

The money, in a rational society, comes from the pockets of those who have made the most money organizing labor to use our infrastructure to extract raw materials from the common resources to turn it into things of value. This can go on if all the rich punks who think they are actually creating wealth pack up and leave. I don't think any other country will for long put up with their crap, and they can't take the infrastructure with them, if we just prohibit its export.


The resurces are here, the labor is here. We don't need little pissants from the financial sector if they do not create wealth or organize its production. Let them go Galt and watch the superstitous little monkeys starve to death.

[leftysergeant]

If that were true the capitalist world would have collapsed long ago.

It has, a couple of times, so the dirtbags who made it collapse just went to war and stole a bunch of other countries resources and killed a lot of excess people so that it looked like they had fixed everything.

[leftysergeant]

1.BP paid for the cleanup.

No, they haven't. The water is nowhere near clean yet.

2. BP is ONE corporation. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay.

Just one example.
3. BP stockholders are ONE group of stockholders. Your claim is that they ALL consume more than they pay.

Just one example. And those drongos are getting a free ride because the company gets special tax breaks.

What US citizens has Haliburton murdered? What were the taxes that those murdered citizens paid? You are off on another emotional, irrational rant.
Again, wild claim. No evidence.

Eleven of them on the oil rig that poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. (Theory of depraved indifference.)

I could name a few other companies that murdered people, but were protected by laws rigged to give them cover. Like Massey Energy. The company should be put to death, like BP, for the same reason. Murder One resulting from depraved indifference to human life. Liquidate them both. There is no right to derive any profit from a felony.

[bikerdruid]

That's your problem right there. When your view of life is that you have a right to expect from the government to give you stuff -- and I mean well beyond safety and the rule of law, but things from housing to healthcare --

weird.
skeptic lives in israel, where they have all of those evil socialist things,
subsidized by several billion dollars of american taxpayer's dollars each year..

[Bob Blaylock]

What sacrifices are the middle class and poor going to make?


More unemployment, higher inflation, higher energy costs, a ****** up medical industry, just to name a few. As much as those on the left want to screw over “The Rich”, it's the middle and lower classes that are going to suffer the results. Those on the left hate “The Rich” more than they care about those who they claim to care about.

[Bob Blaylock]

As to the OP, it seems once more, we hear LS going on about the Republicans and how eeeeeevuuuulllll they are. Here's a reality: Someone voted for them. So who's evil? The Republicans, or those who voted for them?


Reminds me of a memorable quote from the original Star Wars movie (subsequently subtitled “Episode IV: A New Hope”):“Who's more the fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him?” — Obi Wan Kenobi

[Bob Blaylock]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23018&d=1312134140


Your use of this image—a relic of early propaganda from the movement that gave rise to the Союз Советских Социалистических Республик) tells us nothing at all about the topic of this thread; but it does tell us something about you (that we all knew anyway).

[jj]

Those on the left hate “The Rich” more than they care about those who they claim to care about.

I am skeptical of your claim, please provide convincing, testable, verifiable evidence for your claim.

Thank you for your prompt attention.

Btw, by "left" I presume you mean, like most of the people here, someone a bit to the right of Barry Goldwater.

[bikerdruid]

Your use of this image—a relic of early propaganda from the movement that gave rise to the Союз Советских Социалистических Республик) tells us nothing at all about the topic of this thread; but it does tell us something about you (that we all knew anyway).



so pleased you like it.:)

[leftysergeant]

More unemployment, higher inflation, higher energy costs, a ****** up medical industry, just to name a few. As much as those on the left want to screw over “The Rich”, it's the middle and lower classes that are going to suffer the results. Those on the left hate “The Rich” more than they care about those who they claim to care about.That is actually the result of the capitalists taking the money saved in the tax cuts and paying each other bonuses and then buying foreign-made luxuries and opening factories off-shore while their physical plant here was left to rot or sold off-shore.

[jj]

That is actually the result of the capitalists taking the money saved in the tax cuts and paying each other bonuses and then buying foreign-made luxuries and opening factories off-shore while their physical plant here was left to rot or sold off-shore.

Doesn't matter, they have convinced their victims that it's not the fact they took the money and run, thanks to their buddy Rupert the Phone Hacker and his merry band of country-wrecking demigogs.

[Cobalt]

It amazes me the delusions that the right will accept in order to push their agenda of being mean to the unfortunate. Look at you, caring so hard for those poor, poor unfortunate. Why is it "fortune" that determines who has more than those who have less? Are you aware there are some people, key word some, who actually feel fine mooching off the system and won't work for more?

Go look at the numbers. Lose the Baby Busy tax cuts, lose the war costs, and wow, we're back into reasonble territory. Well you've made the claim, you can back it up whenever you'd like.


But it's interesting how nobody wants to admit that we did this to ourselves by giving the class I belong to an unneeded break, and then spending a lot of money on pure destruction, destruction that reduces both our GNP and the world's. You belong to the class that got an unneeded break....still? You're perfectly free to give MORE money to the government than required. Hell, you could do so to become one of those "unfortunate" you seem to have a thing for.

By my atheist, math-understanding view, that's pretty much as evil as one can get.
What does your belief or lack thereof have to do with anything?

It has, a couple of times, so the dirtbags who made it collapse just went to war and stole a bunch of other countries resources and killed a lot of excess people so that it looked like they had fixed everything.
I lol'd at this.

Just one example. And those drongos are getting a free ride because the company gets special tax breaks. Evidence?



Eleven of them on the oil rig that poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. (Theory of depraved indifference.)

I could name a few other companies that murdered people, but were protected by laws rigged to give them cover. Like Massey Energy. The company should be put to death, like BP, for the same reason. Murder One resulting from depraved indifference to human life. Liquidate them both. There is no right to derive any profit from a felony.

Well since you say they committed a felony, naturally it must be true. Why haven't they been arrested and brought to trial, again?

[jj]

Well you've made the claim, you can back it up whenever you'd like.

The figures from OMB on the war cost and the tax cut are available to everyone. Anyone who has not done true and thorough dilligence and examined those numbers has no standing whatsover to even participate in a discussion on the US budget.

If one does not know the numbers, one has not standing whatsoever to even participate in the discussion. Maybe CNN could help out if one does not wish to do addition.

Obviously, one who would question information in the public recordhas failed to examine the actual evidence in any way, shape, or form, and has put demigogery above ethics, morals, and reason.

[Neally]

Just one example.


Just one example. And those drongos are getting a free ride because the company gets special tax breaks.
One example is called cherry picking. Want me to pick one example of a corporation that hasn't killed anyone and that has generous health benefits, contributes to social causes, etc.? Would that make it even?

[jj]

One example is called cherry picking. Want me to pick one example of a corporation that hasn't killed anyone and that has generous health benefits, contributes to social causes, etc.? Would that make it even?


You asked for an example. Given the example, you excuse it. Shift the goalposts much?

[leftysergeant]

One example is called cherry picking. Want me to pick one example of a corporation that hasn't killed anyone and that has generous health benefits, contributes to social causes, etc.? Would that make it even?How about just telling us what the wealthiest Americans are giving up to balance the budget?

[Neally]

You asked for an example. Given the example, you excuse it. Shift the goalposts much?I asked for what citizens Halliburton has murdered, since I had no idea of what he was talking about. Oh and it wasn't murder. Beyond that, I did not ask for an example. I asked for evidence supporting his claim. No goalposts have been moved. Claim remains unsupported.

How about just telling us what the wealthiest Americans are giving up to balance the budget? How about you supporting your claim that they consume more than their share of taxes, you know like you claimed on the first page?

[Virus]

"the rich" = "somebody else"

[Skeptic]

It's very interesting, the USA is the only first-world country that can't afford medical care for its citizens... But we have a heck of a good army

That's part of it right there. As long as the USA was the "world's policeman", other nations, especially European nations, could afford to relatively neglect their own military. How much health care could, say, France afford if it had to maintain an army that would actually be able to hold back a Soviet invasion?

[Skeptic]

weird.
skeptic lives in israel, where they have all of those evil socialist things,
subsidized by several billion dollars of american taxpayer's dollars each year..

Actually, American subsidies for Israel are a very small percentage of Israel's GNP (about 2-3% or so). Many Israelies are against them and think it's high time they stop, not being worth the political indebtedness. To say the USA "subsidizes" Israel is simply not true.

[bikerdruid]

That's part of it right there. As long as the USA was the "world's policeman", other nations, especially European nations, could afford to relatively neglect their own military. How much health care could, say, France afford if it had to maintain an army that would actually be able to hold back a Soviet invasion?

the u.s. pays more per capita than britain and canada on healthcare and still don't have universal healthcare.

[Skeptic]

so pleased you like it.:)

OK, OK. So you would like the USA be like the USSR. Who lived better, again? The average Soviet citizen or the average American one?

Besides, it wouldn't work. The idea that if one got rid of "the rich" one would somehow have a ideal society never works. It is simply that supposedly-exploitive "rich" are replaced by the truly exploitive "members of the inner party" or their functional equivalent.

[bikerdruid]

OK, OK. So you would like the USA be like the USSR.

dude....i don't give a **** what the u.s. does, so long as they do it to themselves.
that's their problem. they just can't keeps their troops and parasitic business interests out of other countries.

[Nosi]

So, what sacrifices do any of you think the wealthiest of Americans are going to have to make before the debt crisis is ironed out?

Or do you think that they have already sacrificed enough?

If so, where did you get such a strange idea?

:rule10 no! They bought and paid for the congress critters. The House & the Senate dance to their drums. The common man can bomb their websites, their phones, and their mail boxes all they want, it won't make a difference. Not really. Not any more.

[Nosi]

Only if you're weak. Yes, politicians of either side are entirely concerned with anonymous internet posters and the blather they put forth. Or I can assume some people on the internet just whine that other people don't do enough because goddamnit they SHOULD.


Those Congress Critter's websites have been bandwidth bombed. Trying to access them is like trying to get anywhere in L.A.'s peak traffic time in 5 minutes. I wrote an email, not sure if it got through.:boggled:

[Nosi]

Those who think that they are where vthey are because they are special, and thus entitled to take without giving back to society so that society can go on promoting the general welfare.

If I need to pay taxes and do without things that I have a right to expect, why don't those who have fed off the fat of society for so long?

The rich aren't creating jobs, but shriek like spanked babies that raising their taxes will kill jobs.

Sick, twisted, immature little twits, they are.

One exception is Bill Gates and his foundation. (He's no longer in charge of Microsux.)

[Nosi]

What sacrifices are the middle class and poor going to make?

A slow dismantling of the safety net of the United States will happen in the next several years. Obama and Congress said the United States is reducing government spending to the level of President Dwight Eisenhower without touching any tax cuts. To do that there must be big cuts, but there will not be any draw down on the wars. Something has to give.

:(

[Nosi]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.

Now we are in a period when it is obvious that the we overcommitted ourselves, and that the programs we want are far beyond our means.

Some, like leftysergeant, would have us continue the pretense. They would have us now pretend that irresponsible commitments should be deemed responsible, simply by virtue (vice?) of having been irresponsibly made. Money we used to pretend we didn't need must now be demanded.

Others might prefer to reconsider these irresponsible commitments, make responsible commitments in their place, and decide upon a level of sacrifice that is based in part on the principle that leftysergeant can't always get what he wants, regardless of how rich his neighbor is or how much he hates them.

If we weren't so committed to blowing people up we wouldn't be in this mess.

[bikerdruid]

If we weren't so committed to blowing people up we wouldn't be in this mess.

.....with many trillions of borrowed dollars, no less.

[stevea]

Where will they go?

-Bri

Where capital is treated well and where they aren't discriminated against.

[stokes234]

That's part of it right there. As long as the USA was the "world's policeman", other nations, especially European nations, could afford to relatively neglect their own military. How much health care could, say, France afford if it had to maintain an army that would actually be able to hold back a Soviet invasion?

France maintain their own nukes. Could you explain to me why guaranteed destruction at the hands of american missiles is more of a deterrent than guaranteed destruction at the hands of french missiles?

[eeyore1954]

No, the burden will be placed on the backs of "the rich."

Do you honestly think Obama's going to propose a tax hike on anyone in the bottom 50%? 60%?

Do you honestly think Obama's going to propose a tax hike on anyone in the bottom 50%? 60%? , 70%?, 80%?. I don't.

To the OP what sacrifice is anyone sharing?

[Toontown]

A slow dismantling of the safety net of the United States will happen in the next several years. Obama and Congress said the United States is reducing government spending to the level of President Dwight Eisenhower without touching any tax cuts. To do that there must be big cuts, but there will not be any draw down on the wars. Something has to give.

:(

Who will believe those lies, and why do you seek belief in them?

The current deficit reduction plan cuts military spending. Plans to draw down from Iraq and Afghanistan have been in place for years. The drawdown from Iraq began last year.

The recession is likely to end, and then tax cuts are very likely to be touched. Fondled, even. Politikers will always do what is necessary to get money to buy votes.

[WildCat]

As a percentage of their income, just barely.
What percentage of your income do you pay in income taxes lefty?

[WildCat]

One exception is Bill Gates and his foundation. (He's no longer in charge of Microsux.)
Ah yes, the foundation he set up to keep his money safe from taxation... :rolleyes:

[Roadtoad]

One analysis of the whole thing. (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/debt-deal-done-does-mean-063125258.html) To me, it still stinks. We might have reduced the deficit, but we haven't really taken much out of the debt. We're simply delaying the inevitable.

I was listening to NPR in St. Louis/Green Bay/Cedar Rapids/Chicago (I was in the Midwest), and one thing kept coming up, (and has already been mentioned here): Why in the hell are we still involved in an interventionist foreign policy? As one interviewee noted, it has NEVER worked. The man cited was a military historian and policy maker at the Pentagon, and he noted factually that at no time in our history has intervention been a successful long term strategy. If anything, it's cost us more in capital and lives than we really could afford, and by ending such activity, we'd be able to pay down - if not off - the National Debt. Too much money involved in too many areas for people to realize we'd be better off in the long run.

[WildCat]

Here's the feel-good story of the day (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-retired-bank-president-struck-and-killed-while-jogging-20110801,0,3455008.story) for leftysergeant!
The retired president of a northwestern Indiana bank has died after being struck by a pickup while jogging.

[AlBell]

That and it's a dead certainty SSI and foodstamps will continue to be funded so he's ok.

[jj]

It's unsurprising, but very sad, that rather than discuss facts, like the issues of the 'W' tax cuts and the unnecessary war in Iraq that created this deficit, we have a lot of people simply attacking the people who point out the testable, verifiable facts. It says something that in this argument about numbers, which are not tentative, the side calling for social program cuts and dismantling of the national park system will not discuss the actual, testable, verifiable numbers, and rather resorts to a whole variety of personal attacks against the side that objects to their misconduct.

[Skeptic]

I'm sorry, jj, but the "it's all Bush's fault" canard isn't holding water.

For one thing I am yet to find anything Obama is doing badly on his supporters don't blame on Bush. It's beginning to look like original sin does to Catholics: all evil in the world today the result of one odd event in the past.

More to the point, it is quite true that the Bushes (Sr. & Jr.) were big spenders, alas. But they're NOTHING compared to Obama. See this video:

P5yxFtTwDcc

Bottom line? They both suck, national-debt wise, but Obama sucks about three times as much as Bush.

[Chaos]

One analysis of the whole thing. (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/debt-deal-done-does-mean-063125258.html) To me, it still stinks. We might have reduced the deficit, but we haven't really taken much out of the debt. We're simply delaying the inevitable.

I was listening to NPR in St. Louis/Green Bay/Cedar Rapids/Chicago (I was in the Midwest), and one thing kept coming up, (and has already been mentioned here): Why in the hell are we still involved in an interventionist foreign policy? As one interviewee noted, it has NEVER worked. The man cited was a military historian and policy maker at the Pentagon, and he noted factually that at no time in our history has intervention been a successful long term strategy. If anything, it's cost us more in capital and lives than we really could afford, and by ending such activity, we'd be able to pay down - if not off - the National Debt. Too much money involved in too many areas for people to realize we'd be better off in the long run.

I´d say World War 2 was an intervention that worked out pretty well in the long run.

But on the whole, that slew of "replace the murderous tyrant who defies us with a murderous tyrant who does as we say" adventures weren´t really smart moves, on average.

[Roadtoad]

I´d say World War 2 was an intervention that worked out pretty well in the long run.

But on the whole, that slew of "replace the murderous tyrant who defies us with a murderous tyrant who does as we say" adventures weren´t really smart moves, on average.

Well, we might not have really gotten that heavily involved had Japan kept its carriers in Yokohama. Once Japan attacked, the Third Reich declared war as well. We were pretty committed at that point.

(Yes, I know. Oversimplification. But you get the point.)

[GlennB]

The "sacrifice" is only necessary because the we committed to pay for social programs we couldn't afford, during a period when it was easy for us to pretend no great sacrifice would be required.


By the same token you also committed to tax cuts and wars you couldn't afford.

Why did you choose to highlight social programs?

[mhaze]

So, what sacrifices do any of you think the wealthiest of Americans are going to have to make before the debt crisis is ironed out?

Or do you think that they have already sacrificed enough?

If so, where did you get such a strange idea?I think that as inflation creeps into the USD, and everyone has billions and trillions of them, everyone will be rich, and everyone will be taxed at the highest rates, but the government will collect nothing worth a dime.

[ladmo]

I´d say World War 2 was an intervention that worked out pretty well in the long run.

Very interesting observation, I never thought of WWII as an intervention on part of the USA and you may be correct. So I can better understand your position, what particular event(s) of WWII made "things" work out pretty well in the long run? thx

[Kestrel]

It's unsurprising, but very sad, that rather than discuss facts, like the issues of the 'W' tax cuts and the unnecessary war in Iraq that created this deficit, we have a lot of people simply attacking the people who point out the testable, verifiable facts. It says something that in this argument about numbers, which are not tentative, the side calling for social program cuts and dismantling of the national park system will not discuss the actual, testable, verifiable numbers, and rather resorts to a whole variety of personal attacks against the side that objects to their misconduct.

Tax cuts and the war in Iraq created large deficits during the first 7 years of George W. Bush's term. The financial meltdown in 2008 along with the stimulus programs to restore the economy more than doubled the yearly deficits.

Get the economy and employment back to normal, then revenues will rise and the need for stimulus will drop. We still have a deficit problem, but it's much more manageable. Attempt to fix the deficit first by axing the stimulus programs and the economy is likely to slip back into recession. The revenue drop undoes at least part of the progress made toward deficit reduction.

[jj]

By the same token you also committed to tax cuts and wars you couldn't afford.

Why did you choose to highlight social programs?

Because it's the cry of the Christian Taliban. The more miserable, poor people, the more fodder for their demigogs to chew.

[Mike!]

Very interesting observation, I never thought of WWII as an intervention on part of the USA and you may be correct. So I can better understand your position, what particular event(s) of WWII made "things" work out pretty well in the long run? thx

Well, we're not all speaking German now. That's something.

[leftysergeant]

Why did you choose to highlight social programs?

Social Programs don't feed the people who own the GOP.

[Chaos]

Very interesting observation, I never thought of WWII as an intervention on part of the USA and you may be correct. So I can better understand your position, what particular event(s) of WWII made "things" work out pretty well in the long run? thx

Not a single event as such, but the removal of the German and Japanese governments did have some positive effects in the medium to long term. Such as, you know, both nations becoming very valuable US allies for decades.

[leftysergeant]

Well, we might not have really gotten that heavily involved had Japan kept its carriers in Yokohama. Once Japan attacked, the Third Reich declared war as well. We were pretty committed at that point.

Had we spent just a little more on defense to convince the Japanese that they did not want to expand any further in the Pacific, we might have gone on just selling bazillions of dollars worth of amraments to the free nations of Europe and come out of the depression by 1940. When we became our own best customer for those armaments, it really took a bite out of the budget and set us back a bit on paying down the New Deal deficits.

[applecorped]

drongo thread is drongo

[leftysergeant]

drongo thread is drongoSeriously. I asked the usual knee-jerk right wingers what their side was sacrificing to fix the budget and not a one of them seems to have a clue.

[Roadtoad]

I gave you an answer. You didn't like it, so you ignored it.

If you don't have the decency to be honest, at least be amusing.

Ignore is starting to look good right now.

[leftysergeant]

Where capital is treated well and where they aren't discriminated against.Chile?

[leftysergeant]

I gave you an answer. You didn't like it, so you ignored it.

I still don't see what the Koch bothers and the Walton larvae lose in the solution to the budget problems.

[daenku32]

It's high time to tax the rich. It's as simple as that.

[Minoosh]

...leaving working people to make up the difference in the cost of cleaning up the goo the oil volcano dumped on us
I love your imagery but the tone is that of polemic or screed or rant ... I get it you ARE ranting and you are good at it ... but when you have data near to hand please state it or link to it because I like to know stuff it makes me feel smart.

[jj]

I love your imagery but the tone is that of polemic or screed or rant ... I get it you ARE ranting and you are good at it ... but when you have data near to hand please state it or link to it because I like to know stuff it makes me feel smart.

If you're talking about the oil platform issue, the real damage is still happening, and will continue for some years, the little people have no chance of a reasonable recovery from it, and the people who made their living from the gulf are still out of a living for another 10 years.

[Achán hiNidráne]

You do understand, don't you, that most of the Tea Party folks are just regular working stiffs?

Which is why we should be entrusting operation of the economy to actual economists rather than "working stiffs" who have barely graduated high school.

[Roadtoad]

Which is why we should be entrusting operation of the economy to actual economists rather than "working stiffs" who have barely graduated high school.

Except when you consider how often they've gotten it wrong, badly, and there's this small matter of people in this country wanting to run their own lives, rather than have them planned for them.

[Roadtoad]

I still don't see what the Koch bothers and the Walton larvae lose in the solution to the budget problems.

Try this:

I was listening to NPR in St. Louis/Green Bay/Cedar Rapids/Chicago (I was in the Midwest), and one thing kept coming up, (and has already been mentioned here): Why in the hell are we still involved in an interventionist foreign policy? As one interviewee noted, it has NEVER worked. The man cited was a military historian and policy maker at the Pentagon, and he noted factually that at no time in our history has intervention been a successful long term strategy. If anything, it's cost us more in capital and lives than we really could afford, and by ending such activity, we'd be able to pay down - if not off - the National Debt. Too much money involved in too many areas for people to realize we'd be better off in the long run.

Sound familiar?

[Minoosh]

If you're talking about the oil platform issue, the real damage is still happening, and will continue for some years, the little people have no chance of a reasonable recovery from it, and the people who made their living from the gulf are still out of a living for another 10 years.
Thank you, in the abstract I probably knew that. Is BP doing anything to try to put that right? I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I really am interested in the economics. People work for BP, I'd venture to say BP created some jobs - I'm not trying to absolve corporations, just wondering if there is a model of corporate responsibility or redress that might actually work. A class-action lawsuit will make work for lawyers and possibly make up for some of the economic damage but I wondered if there were a more efficient, less adversarial model, a way around the "little guy vs. the evil corporation" dichotomy. Maybe not, as BP answers to its shareholders and not to Gulf Coast residents. The thank you is for putting it in concrete terms for me and people on these forums who keep referreing to people who "won't work," as if that's the only reason anybody could possibly be unemployed.

[AlBell]

Neither jj nor anyone else has a clue about how badly Gulf Coast residents are still being impacted by the BP disaster.

The $20 billion BP ponied up for damages must have helped some.

[Grizzly Adams]

I will take Warren Buffet's opinion over yours just about any day.

You're going to trust that bloody fat cat drongo??!!?!?!

[eeyore1954]

Neither jj nor anyone else has a clue about how badly Gulf Coast residents are still being impacted by the BP disaster.

The $20 billion BP ponied up for damages must have helped some.

I think less than 5 billion has been paid. Good thing the evil drongos at BP are not administering the fund

[theprestige]

By the same token you also committed to tax cuts and wars you couldn't afford.

Why did you choose to highlight social programs?

You misunderstand. You're fixated on the fiscal policy of the last ten years or so, the "Bush" tax cuts that Obama reinstated.

I'm talking about a systemic policy failure a century or more in the making, with all factions complicit in its sowing and its harvest.

You want to argue that irresponsible commitments were made? Fine, but don't exempt your own irresponsibility, just for the sake of scoring irrelevant partisan points.

The government is stupid, corrupt, and incompetent, and has been so for a hundred years and more. The fiscal tomfoolery of the last ten years is incidental, really. The only question that matters is whether the current government can solve the problem or not.

That said, I imagine if the Bush administration had seen the crisis looming, they would have seriously reconsidered their military expeditions. If you wish to contend that they did see the crisis looming, and chose their course even so, then I humbly request that you present compelling evidence in your very next post, or else start a thread in the CT forum to parade your lunatic delusions.

[theprestige]

Which is why we should be entrusting operation of the economy to actual economists rather than "working stiffs" who have barely graduated high school.

Who gets to pick the actual economists, Achán hiNidráne?

[Chaos]

Except when you consider how often they've gotten it wrong, badly, and there's this small matter of people in this country wanting to run their own lives, rather than have them planned for them.

And are they running their own lives right now? Do the people in charge now have a better track record of not getting things wrong?

[Bob Blaylock]

If you don't have the decency to be honest, at least be amusing.


It appears that you are forgetting who it is that you are addressing.

It makes no sense to ask a fish to fly like an eagle.

[Bri]

That said, I imagine if the Bush administration had seen the crisis looming, they would have seriously reconsidered their military expeditions. If you wish to contend that they did see the crisis looming, and chose their course even so, then I humbly request that you present compelling evidence in your very next post, or else start a thread in the CT forum to parade your lunatic delusions.

The tax cuts were based on a 2001 CBO prediction that the government would run a $5.6 trillion surplus from 2001 to 2011. Then came 9/11 and other unforseen circumstances, and in 2002 the CBO announced that their predictions were way off. If there had not been a projection of $5.6 trillion in surpluses, Congress never would have approved $1.35 trillion in tax cuts. And unfortunately, there was no mechanism to automatically stop the tax cuts in the event that the predictions were off.

While you're probably correct that Bush didn't know the extent of the looming economic crisis, he did know that the original CBO estimates upon which the tax cuts were based were way off before we invaded Iraq in 2003. I think Bush vastly underestimated the cost and extent of the wars, believing that the invasion of Iraq would be over as soon as we had defeated Saddam Hussein ("Mission accomplished!"). And of course the tax cuts continued even as revenues continued to drop and expenses from the war continued to rise. I think that was probably GlennB's point -- that the current situation isn't only due to social programs.

-Bri

[jj]

Neither jj nor anyone else has a clue about how badly Gulf Coast residents are still being impacted by the BP disaster.

That is an interesting claim, perhaps you could provide testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence for it?

If not, would you be so kind as to admit that it's pure fabrication?

[leftysergeant]

You're going to trust that bloody fat cat drongo??!!?!?!Well, he is one of the few to admit that he is getting over on the rest of the country under the tax system devised by Bush the lesser. That, to me, makes him look like twice the man as any Repulicon politician I know.

[AlBell]

Neither jj nor anyone else has a clue about how badly Gulf Coast residents are still being impacted by the BP disaster.

That is an interesting claim, perhaps you could provide testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence for it?
Better yet why don't you provide testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence of the impact today on Gulf Residents?



If not, would you be so kind as to admit that it's pure fabrication?
You first.

[leftysergeant]

Better yet why don't you provide testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence of the impact today on Gulf Residents?




You first.The population of fish and shrimp in the Gulf was reduced. You need to prove that it has recovered.

[jj]

Better yet why don't you provide testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence of the impact today on Gulf Residents?


I should not have to provide something that is well established in both public and scientific circles. I am agreeing with the scientific understanding, and you are making an extraordinary claim via insinuation.

Please provide the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim, or do us the courtesy of admitting it's pure fabrication.

[jj]

The population of fish and shrimp in the Gulf was reduced. You need to prove that it has recovered.

Additionally, sea birds, microfauna, microflora, O2, redox, etc, all have not recovered. Beaches have a layer of oil a few inches down and you dare not dig. So far, the impact is clear if you bother to actually look anywhere. A big storm is going to make an awful mess if it churns up some of the sand.

[AlBell]

Your wild speculations make a nice story; now, about that actual "Evidence"?

[jj]

Your wild speculations make a nice story; now, about that actual "Evidence"?

I'm sorry, but calling the actual scientific concensus "wild speculations" is beyond just merely recalcitrant. I don't think there's any point in engaging in dialog with somebody who would say such things.

[AlBell]

Unfortunately, your assurances "scientific consensus" exists do not meet the requirement that you actually provide Evidence that 1) such consensus exists, and 2) what it avers.

[mhaze]

Your wild speculations make a nice story; now, about that actual "Evidence"?Like, I've walked those beaches, before and after the events we speak of. Is that evidence? Wait. I mean evidence of the sort people who have not already made up their minds consider.

[AlBell]

Anecdotes don't even reach the level of wild speculation.

Don't have any of that actual, you know, Evidence, huh?

[jj]

Anecdotes don't even reach the level of wild speculation.

Don't have any of that actual, you know, Evidence, huh?

By your standard, all observations are anecdotes, and publicly released scientific reports and photographs are nothing at all.

Agan you show yourself to be unwilling to accept fact. It would appear that your belief is impenetrable.

[geni]

That's part of it right there. As long as the USA was the "world's policeman", other nations, especially European nations, could afford to relatively neglect their own military. How much health care could, say, France afford if it had to maintain an army that would actually be able to hold back a Soviet invasion?

Given the relaxed atitiude of the french towards nuclear weaposn about the same as it is spending now.

[geni]

It is the socialist world -- where the government made sure nobody, God forbid, make any money since it's unfair to the people -- that unsurprisingly impoverished nations.

Thats communism rather than socialism. Still most of the world's poorest nations are capitalist. In fact according to IMF there are 20 countries with a lower GDP per than Zimbabwe which is the poorest country that is even nominaly communist. Otherwise there are ~30 countries with a lower GDP per capita than north korea and 36 lower than Laos.

CIA figures say there are 101 countries with a lower GDP per capita than cuba.

[Neally]

I asked the usual knee-jerk right wingers what their side was sacrificing to fix the budget and not a one of them seems to have a clue.Here's a clue. According to the IRS, for 2008, the top 5% of the people with the highest income paid 58% of all taxes and had tax rate of 20.70%. The bottom 50% paid 2.7% and had a tax rate of 2.59%. The top earners are already paying a disproportionate share.

[leftysergeant]

The top earners are already paying a disproportionate share.No, they are not. They are benefitting at a higher rate from the infrastructure and require the greatest regulatory and infrastructural expenditures and do the greatest environmental damage.

The fact that they are shipping our jobs off shore as fast as they can doesn't help much, either.

[theprestige]

No, they are not. They are benefitting at a higher rate from the infrastructure and require the greatest regulatory and infrastructural expenditures and do the greatest environmental damage.
They benefit more, and they pay more. Seems pretty fair to me.

ETA: Or at least, it would seem fair, if we were talking just about people paying for the benefits they receive. But what we're actually talking about is people paying for the benefits they receive, and then being forced to pay extra, for benefits other people receive. That may be good social policy, but it's hardly "fair". You need to make up your mind, lefty: Are the rich supposed to pay their fair share, or are they supposed to pay extra for everybody else as well?

The fact that they are shipping our jobs off shore as fast as they can doesn't help much, either.

Oh, this ought to be good! Where is it written, pray tell, O leftysergeant, that the jobs were ours in the first place?

Hard mode: Explain yourself without using the word "drongo".

Nightmare mode: Explain yourself without using any pejoratives at all.

[JudeBrando]

Those who contribute absolutely nothing of any real value to society,
yet live largely or even entirely at the public expense of others,
what do they now sacrifice?

[Neally]

No, they are not. They are benefitting at a higher rate from the infrastructure and require the greatest regulatory and infrastructural expenditures and do the greatest environmental damage.
Again with this nonsense. Either prove it, or quit repeating it. One example does not constitute proof.

You might want to consider the high crime rate in lower income areas and the consequent higher police, court, and other legal expenses involved. Think about the welfare benefits that the lower income people disproportionately consume. Wealthier people have more expensive houses and thus pay more in property taxes, again disproportionately to what they consume. They pay more for gasoline, thus disproportionately pay more in taxes for roads. The list goes on and on.

And don't bother dragging corporations into the the discussion and their offshore practices. We are talking about people and the tax rate on individuals.

[leftysergeant]

They benefit more, and they pay more. Seems pretty fair to me.They are taxed at a rate less than the rate at which they derive benefit from or require regulation by government. Totally not right.

Oh, this ought to be good! Where is it written, pray tell, O leftysergeant, that the jobs were ours in the first place? We got together to create the infrastructure within which commerce could be conducted in an orderly manner, set up structures to secure ownership of property to those entitled to ownership, and made natural resources of the country available to those who would develop them. This was all done with the understanding that the ecconomic activity which this facilitated would benefit us all. Worked fine until the investor class decided that they could do whatever they wished with anything they paid for and decided it was no longer in their interests to pay people here a decent day's provisions for a day's work. They broke a system that had taken centuries to build.

They were given massive tax cuts under REonaldus Senilus and Bush the lesser on the false pretext that they would then produce more jobs.

They didn't. Screw them. All they are is a burden on society.

[Dayan81]

Those who contribute absolutely nothing of any real value to society,
yet live largely or even entirely at the public expense of others,
what do they now sacrifice?

Hey Jude, may I ask what your FIT rate is?

[JudeBrando]

Hey Jude, may I ask what your FIT rate is?

I assure you, you are wrong.

[leftysergeant]

Those who contribute absolutely nothing of any real value to society,
yet live largely or even entirely at the public expense of others,
what do they now sacrifice?The able-bodied unemployed are the reserve labor force that would be needed if the capitalists performed the only function for which they seem at all fit.

The disabled are a burden, but it is part of what makes us human that we acknowledge a responsibility to provide for them.

It is non-human to allow them to starve in a rich land where only the elite prosper.

That's where the Republicon tax policies are taking us.

[leftysergeant]

And don't bother dragging corporations into the the discussion and their offshore practices. We are talking about people and the tax rate on individuals.

The corporations are snivelling about how they are peopel and should noto be regulated or pay taxes. Idiotic idea. And the useless parasities who crashed the ecconomy escape any liability to repair it by hiding behind the skirts of their corporate identities.

One way or another, some money needs to be sqeezed out of them to fix what they screwed up.

[Dayan81]

I assure you, you are wrong.

Does that mean you are not going to tell me?

That's fine.

[AlBell]

By your standard, all observations are anecdotes, and publicly released scientific reports and photographs are nothing at all.
Now we're getting closer. Cite some of these reports, which I presume will contain some of these photos.

Agan you show yourself to be unwilling to accept fact. It would appear that your belief is impenetrable.
Yeah, I have strong beliefs about the usefulness of anecdotal blather, especially by someone whose background is neither in geology or in any way knowlegable about the oil industry.

[geni]

Again with this nonsense. Either prove it, or quit repeating it. One example does not constitute proof.

You might want to consider the high crime rate in lower income areas and the consequent higher police, court, and other legal expenses involved. Think about the welfare benefits that the lower income people disproportionately consume.

All but the most foolish of the rich have worked out that it is cheaper to buy the poor off rather than fight them off.


Wealthier people have more expensive houses and thus pay more in property taxes, again disproportionately to what they consume.

You really do have a low opinion of accountants don't you? Or are you seriously suggesting that they would fail to advise their clients of the benfits of registering their home as a farm for tax purposes?


They pay more for gasoline, thus disproportionately pay more in taxes for roads. The list goes on and on.

Err what? Rate of petrol tax varies by wealth? Since when?



And don't bother dragging corporations into the the discussion and their offshore practices. We are talking about people and the tax rate on individuals.

Um so? You are aware that indivials can use many of the same stratergies.

[leftysergeant]

Now we're getting closer. Cite some of these reports, which I presume will contain some of these photos.

You don't get to do that. We said that the Gulf has not been restored or even cleaned up. You need to present proof that the oil has been removed from the water and is no longer a hazard to sea life and that fisheries are recovering.

[JohnnyG]

We said that the Gulf has not been restored or even cleaned up.
Yes, that is called a claim.

You need to present proof that the oil has been removed from the water and is no longer a hazard to sea life and that fisheries are recovering.
Sorry. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

[jj]

Yes, that is called a claim.


Sorry. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

His "claim" is nothing more than reporting the concensus of the scientists who have examined and measured the area of the gulf that was contaminated. He is reporting the concensus. He is not making a claim. You, on the other hand, are insinuating the opposite, and thereby making an extraordinary claim, and a claim that you are required to provide testable, verifiable, falsifable, and extraordinary evidence for.

So get with the program.

[JohnnyG]

His "claim" is nothing more than reporting the concensus of the scientists who have examined and measured the area of the gulf that was contaminated. He is reporting the concensus. He is not making a claim. You, on the other hand, are insinuating the opposite, and thereby making an extraordinary claim, and a claim that you are required to provide testable, verifiable, falsifable, and extraordinary evidence for.

So get with the program.
You are claiming that there is a concensus but have yet to back it up after being asked several times. Maybe there is a concensus, meybe not - but until you post something more digestible than word salad, the only logical position on a skeptics forum is to be skeptical.

[jj]

You are claiming that there is a concensus but have yet to back it up after being asked several times. Maybe there is a concensus, meybe not - but until you post something more digestible than word salad, the only logical position on a skeptics forum is to be skeptical.

It's not MY concensus, and you don't know what "word salad" means.
I simply refuse to provide you with any aid in discovering what you should have known before you bothered to attempt authoritive-sounding claims.

Had you done dilligence, you would know.

[eeyore1954]

You are claiming that there is a concensus but have yet to back it up after being asked several times. Maybe there is a concensus, meybe not - but until you post something more digestible than word salad, the only logical position on a skeptics forum is to be skeptical.

I guess JJ is big on asking others to verify his/her claims. Look at the national park thread.

It is up to people to either believe what JJ says or go out and do their do diligence.
But this is a forum not stock investing.

[JohnnyG]

It's not MY concensus, and you don't know what "word salad" means.
I simply refuse to provide you with any aid in discovering what you should have known before you bothered to attempt authoritive-sounding claims.

Had you done dilligence, you would know.

Of course it is not your concensus - but it is your claim that there is one. I guess your evidence must be lacking.

[leftysergeant]

You misunderstand. You're fixated on the fiscal policy of the last ten years or so, the "Bush" tax cuts that Obama reinstated.

He did not so much reinstate them as he conceded that they should stay in place while actual ecconomic stimulus was allowed to work on the unemployment problem. He pointed out, perhaps rightly, that raising taxes, especially on he middle class, would not help as far as job creation. Had he been able to continue the break for the middle class without extending them for the wealthiest 5%, I am confident that he would have done so.

Problem is that, by that time, the cry babies had taken over the House, and there was no way he was going to get a middle-class tax cut without making even bigger concessions to the teatards and their super-wealthy owners.

That said, I imagine if the Bush administration had seen the crisis looming, they would have seriously reconsidered their military expeditions. If you wish to contend that they did see the crisis looming, and chose their course even so, then I humbly request that you present compelling evidence in your very next post, or else start a thread in the CT forum to parade your lunatic delusions.Nothing CTish about it. The strategy of the neocons is to spend like drunken sailors when they have the ability to drain off the treasury, then snivel about the deficit when the Democrats have the White House and screw up any social prograsms that they did not manage to break under the previous administration Thom Hartmann had a bit to say about this on his radio program Monday. He referred to it as the "Two Santa Clauses" plan.

They are now trying to convince us that their austerity programs are the only remedy for the mess they made. What better way to castrate a government than to start two un-winnable wars and bankrupt it?

It fits right in with Norquist's and Gingrich's idea of drowning governmnet in the bathtub.

[Roadtoad]

For more info about the Gulf Coast, start here. (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/beyond-recovery-moving-the-gulf-coast-toward-a-sustainable-future)