Quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the rich

Let's just say: We disagree.

 

Actually they can both be true. You're wrong and I disagree with your error. Truth isn't relative, it's absolute.

 

I'm not going into philosophy right now.

We disagree; simple as that.

 

what a pile of absolute horsesh__t and people like this poster are part of the problem with America today.

First and foremost, let me echo a few things what former president Bill Clinton said today on CNN:

'If you look at every succeful economy in the world, in particular the booming ones, there is no evidence that a weak/small government works'
'No succesful country in the world is based on a completely free market idealogy, government and private sector work together'
'USA ranks 31st out of 33 of the richer countries in the % of income that goes to taxes'



"Socialism (Obama's policy) is to take from the rich and give it to the poor so that everyone is in a similar wealth strata"

So a guy paying more taxes on a salary of 12 million/yr is put in the same 'social strata' by the govt as a man making 20k/yr? really?

Since work will not be 100% tied to what one receives in revenue, incentive is blunted which ultimately brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

So if you make 40k/year you won't have much incentive to become a millionaire because you will need to pay more taxes than you currently do? Let me see:

1. 40k/year = 0 effective income tax rate (but you pay payroll taxes) = 35k take home pay
2. 5 million salary = 30% effective tax rate = 3.5 million take home

So you are saying there is NO incentive to get from 35k/year to 3.5 million/year? In which alternative universe do you live in?


The goverment does a lot of good and it is absolutely needed. The US goverment doesn't interfere with the free economy and the regulations are not overbearing at all - they are put in place to prevent private sector collapses.

Let me say that i lived in a 3rd world country for many years where the poor don't get much government help. Let me tell ya, it doesn't work.. The rich don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the poor, exploit them to become richer and this leads to extreme inequality and class warfare which could end in civil unrest and wars. All humans are by nature greedy, some are imorral, corruption runs rampant too... and government needs to step in. Rich don't do the good deeds...they just care about themselves.

Also remember this - the millionaires and billionaires cannot be where they are without the poor and middle class because there wouldn't be enough money to go around - not all 300 million Americans can be millionaires in a capitalist society. The poor and middle class are needed and the rich would not exist without them. No big corporation can survive without the lower income paying jobs so millionaires need to understand a simple fact - YOU CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS, so help them out a little. GET IT? Either there is a communist state where there are no poor or a capitalist state where millionaires can own 100 foot yachts, 20 million dollar mansions, 6 fast cars while also, yes, helping the lower class a little by paying taxes...

 

Imagine telling Republicans like myself when Clinton was in office that another Democrat president would make us wish we had Clinton back.

 

And of course, I'm not buying your perceptions/views on this. So be it.

 

Clinton was a moderate democrat and probably the best politician today but let me ask you - What exactly has Obama done so poorly? Without listening to the biased garbage Fox News spit can you for a sec be impartial and tell me what Obama has done so terribly wrong?

I'm more of an independant, probably 60/40 democrat/republican but this is how i see things:

1. Economy. Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since GREAT DEPRESSION. When he assumed office, banks were failing, companies going out of business, unemployment peaked around 10%, stock market as volatile as ever, bottoming at 6k!. Millions of jobs were being lost... Now, stock market is healthy, US is adding jobs, albeit slowly, banks are healthy again (although not lending too much) and overall economy is stable... the recovery has been slow but no president (not reagan, not FDR, not Romney) could've restored this economy in 4 years...
2. Healthcare. He passed a bill which is very similar to what Romney put in place in Masachussets and has a lot of good things in it. The healthcare system in Masachussets has for the most part received rave reviews and has worked well. Why do republicans hate Obamacare? Cause it's federal, not at state level but the system has worked very well in Masachussets and could work very well in the country. This healthcare bill has been demonized more because it was passed without republican votes and because republicans don't want to give Obama credit for anything. Is it perfect? NO, but the good things probably outweigh the bad things, everyone knows the demonizing has been mostly political
3. Foreign Policy. As CNN correctly put it today... the unrest in middle east has nothing to do with Obama.. Would this not have happened under Bush? stop kidding yourselves, Bush was more hated than Obama. The Islamist extremists will always have their moments of chaos and part of the hatred they have for the US is due to US's bias towards Israel and intervention. 09/11 was a direct result of the Gulf War (said by Osama himself)... Obama has it right - America shoudn't militarize foreign countries that much, it creates radicals
4. Defecit/Debt. Most of the debt has been attributable to the Bush tax cuts and bad economy.. a small percentage has been due to Obama's stimulus packages. It has grown under Obama mainly due to less tax revenues as a result of bad economy (something he isn't to blame for) and less revenue due to Bush's tax cuts. Spending has increased due to bad economy as-well, as more are dependant on govt during bad economy. Obama hasn't done anything really to balloon the defecit, this debt would've sky rocketed under ANY president because no preseint would've raised taxes or jump started the economy in just a few years...
5. Big govt vs small govt. Some of the biggest spenders and biggest governments have been in place under republican presidents... The debt quandrupled under Reagan and Bush senior and then doubled under Bush jr... So it's ironic that republicans blame Obama for big govt when he hasn't really done much to deserve this blame


So tell me, give me some impartial, unbiased opinions of why Obama has been so bad? What would've Romney done to solve the biggest economic crisis since GREAT DEPRESSION? Cut taxes more? The Bush tax cuts didn't quite work so what would this have done? increase the debt more? Foreign Policy? he would've licked Israel's buttcrack and taken a warlike stance against middle east, Russia, Iran? possibly gotten us on the verge of another war we can't afford?

I think this Country would've been in worst shape had Romney being in power...

 

Amen to ALL of the above!!

 

He was definitely a great politician

Better question is what has he not screwed up?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Like most "independents" you're a liberal Democrat ashamed to call yourself a liberal Democrat.

Oh, the "inherited" argument. It might be halfway believable if the right people were blamed. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the Democrat Party that crashed 2 major sectors of the economy.

More crap. Reagan restored a GDP of 6% and better, dropped unemployment to single digits, and brought the stock market roaring back before his re-election bid in 1984. You cite a lackluster recovery as an accomplishment. A Republican can do better than 1.5% GDP growth with his eyes closed.

Obamacare is overwhelmingly unpopular and is poised to create and raise more taxes in 2014. Poll after poll shows Americans want it repealed. Yesterday.

And you criticize me for watching Foxnews. You know, I'm getting sick of this discussion, so I'm going to leave it here. You're not worth the effort, I can see that now.

 

The difference between Clinton and Obama is Clinton governed the country from the center while Obama is an extremist far left. Clinton has the balls and he shows he could get things done. Obama can't even have ONE budget approved by not only Republican, but his own party Democrat as well. Obama is a divider.

Also, Clinton does not need the teleprompter when he speaks. Obama is NO Clinton in any way, shape or form.

 

You aren't able to take words, string them into coherent sentences, and articulate the nature of a unifying principle or principles that Americans share. You dance around the subject, but can't describe what it is that you believe holds Americans together and provides social cohesion. Then you end with nonsense. Johnny, this is a debate between the two of us and not someone on the street corner. Emotion is strong with you, but analysis is weak.

America doesn't have a unifying principle based on blood, race, ethnicity, religion, or culture. America once had a unifying principle based on the Classical Liberal of Individual Liberty, but that ideal died because it was demoted and subordinated in the hearts and minds of at least half of the people in the country. Thus, there is no longer a unifying principle to which all Americans subscribe.

America was based on an idea. So was the Soviet Union. When the idea dies the polity hollows out and loses social cohesion. That weakens the polity to the point where it can't defend itself successfully from internal and external assault.

 

Johnny, I don't think you have a classical education. That puts you at a disadvantage in discussing ideas originating or gestating in the European Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution and Chinese Revolution.

 

Obama succeeded in getting his Stimulus passed and Dodd-Frank passed. Then he took his eye of the ball and turned to Obamacare.

In taking on Obamacare he put the ideologues Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge. Then he made the mistake of getting it passed without conservative buy in. FDR got conservatives to buy in to Social Security. LBJ got conservatives to buy in to Medicare. BHO didn't get conservative buy in on Obamacare, and in doing so he set the stage for the country to be ripped apart like it was in the 1850s after passage of the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

 

Astute assessment, I agree. When somebody claims to be a moderate or "independent" and supports a radical socialist ideologue like Obama, I have to pull the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) card.

 

and this is why this country is in such conflict, due to people like you... who simply hate liberals and will never ever give them credit. You are the foul bunch that just wants Obama out of the job at the expense of the country. It's sad and some like you represent the worst of America.. and your response was very typical of the far right - clogged with hatred and 0 substance. I provided pretty good points and you failed to take them head on, you couldn't, and it enraged you not because you felt i was wrong but because my points were valid... This is what mostly enrages the far right - when someone challenges them with pretty reasonable and strong arguments they can't handle it.

pretty much all of your rebutals were poor at best but i will highlight one of your answers as i feel i need to educate you:

"More crap. Reagan restored a GDP of 6% and better, dropped unemployment to single digits, and brought the stock market roaring back before his re-election bid in 1984. You cite a lackluster recovery as an accomplishment. A Republican can do better than 1.5% GDP growth with his eyes closed."

Reagan inherited an economy NOTHING like what Obama inherited... The economic crisis Obama inherited was MUCH worse than what Reagan took over. Reagan would've NOT fixed this economy... early 80s recession was a -2.7% contraction, 08 crisis was -5.1%. Reagan's recession was mainly due to an energy crisis and the subsequent tight monetary policy from the Fed. These problems were much more easily remedied by 'reaganomics' than a crash of the housing market and an almost total collapse of the financial system and auto industry. Massive bailouts (some of them under Bush) and unparalled monetary easing/stimulus were needed to prevent another depression. Reagan's recession was a much easier one to deal with and comparing the two shows little understanding of much...

Clinton also turned around a less severe recession with very different policies than Reagan but neither Clinton nor Reagan would've been able to turn this crisis around quickly... It was a success to just stop this economy from diving into another great depression because we were surely heading in that direction..

as far as 'A Republican can do better than 1.5% GDP growth with his eyes closed'.. like Bush?

 

Mike, America is composed of a series of differing tribes engaged in a zero sum game. Some tribes move up the economic food chain only at the expense of other tribes that are forced to move down the economic food chain.

The life expectancy of poorly educated white people in America is declining. That is symptomatic of the process.

You can no longer expect any cooperation ever again. The left sought to empower minorities by multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is that it created separate identities and not unity. Thus, we are no longer all in this together.

The only thing that could change that is rapid economic growth, but that's not going to happen because it would require America to develop its huge deposits of natural gas and shale oil. That violates the tenets of environmentalism which is a leftist shibboleth. So tribalism is what the present and future hold in store for America.

 

It's utterly bs. The turn around of the economy was due to TARP (approved by Bush admin) and the Fed's endless QE printing scheme. Bernanke actually claimed his policy saved or created 2 millions jobs, and he projected that his opened end easy monetary would push GDP to 3% growth next year. Liberals just love to give Obama more credit than he actually deserve. Scary weird.

 

'The left sought to empower minorities by multiculturalism. The problem with multiculturalism is that it created separate identities and not unity. Thus, we are no longer all in this together.'

really? i disagree.. there would be less unity otherwise

as far as the natural gas and oil, i don't think this is the answer... as if this alone is what is stopping american from booming again. As far as environmentalist issue goes, it's not my strong point so i don't know much about it so would need to read up on it. All i will say is that protecting the evironment is important, we can't run around and destroy wildlife and the planet just to get resources we need right now with no regard to the future. Now are the regulations off the wall? overbearing? too restrictive and unwarranted? maybe, but i'm not versed enough on the subject.. i would need to read up on it

and how about alternative energy? innovation in this regard? Why just focus on what we have on our backyard? and just drill drill the hell of what we have

 

Like what? GM Volt and Solyndra?

 

innovation and technological advances, my friend, is what has made this economy expand and grow over the long run.... drilling and drilling a finite resource isn't the answer long term... may be the asnwer right now though but not without any regards to the envornment..

 

An even worse answer is to punish tried and reliable sources of energy while at the same time give artificial support to "green" energy that cannot demonstrate viability in realville. "Drill baby drill" is what we have right now. It works and until something else proves it can work to....WITHOUT GOVERMENT SUBSIDIES.....then we need to be going with what works.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. There isn't going to be unity period. The result is a drastically weakened America. But I can live with that.

What Americans need immediately are good paying jobs, but most Americans are products of the public schools. That means they are unqualified for the sort of information jobs one finds in Silicon Valley. Since they can't participate in the Information Economy, and the Industrial Sector has been shipped to China, the only thing left for most Americans is Resource Economy jobs that pay well.

Environmental extremism prevents the realization of social justice because social justice needs economic growth.

Green energy has been politicized and will never be developed in America on a significant scale. Green energy needs direct federal grants, subsidies, crony capitalism, and tax deductions and tax credits to prosper.

Republican control of the House of Representatives means none of that will be happening. Tax credits will be allowed to expire, and there will be no new grants. Solyndra is the epitome of green energy.

 

I heard thermal heating and cooling is really good system. But installing it involves lots of drilling too. It the cost of installing a thermal heating & cooling is more affordable, do you support it or do you concern about drilling might kill some garden snakes in your backyard?

 

There is a short term, mid-term and long term. A comprehensive approach to all forms of energy is what would be good for America. But that is not meant to be. Environmentalists will never cooperate on the development of the ocean of natural gas and shale oil on which America sits. So conservatives will never cooperate on the development of green energy.

Instead the country will impoverish itself by importing expensive crude oil from foreign dictators. That will ruin the standard of living in America for most people. It is what it is.