Republican Judgement

[retro]

r peop

Let me get this straight, you'd rather cut down on spending on healthcare than raise money from bad habits which cause health problems in the first place, such as tanning and smoking? :24::surrender

You're really good at the strawman argument, aren't you? I simply gave examples of raised taxes, I didn't give my opinion on them one way or another. However, way to ignore the other taxes I mentioned and go straight to the ones that back up your argument.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yeah, those Bush tax cuts only helped the top 1%... except that they help me and I'm nowhere near the top 1%, not even close actually. Those tax cuts also did away with the marriage penalty... so guess who is getting screwed over again, oh that's right... regular working people.

But hey, don't mind the facts getting in the way of your rant.

You believe in trickle down which is the bullshit coinservative agenda to help the rich keep theirs. Fine and dandy. As long as we all understand what it is. Now the marriage penalty can be addressed in another bill. I have no problem with getting rid of that.

You never will get a liberal to understand trickle down.

I understand it perfectly. It's a favoritism to the nth degree towards people who don't need the help.

 

[edgray]

We are in a recession for a whole myriad of reasons. Most of them which the govt contributed to.

We would not be going broke if the govt was not so corrupt and would spend what they have coming in versus borrowing up the ass.

Sure there are dozens of reasons that the recession could be attributed to, but to neglect the fact that just before the great depression and just before the recent recession, the top 1% were pulling in a staggering 25% of the wages in society.

And that is the problem with the trickle down idea: it doesn't work, as you can see.

I agree with the statement about the govt being corrupt, and I think that can be said for the UK too.

 

[Minor Axis]

The problem is people whether they are located in government or the corporate boardroom. The problem with many of our conservative contributors is that they want to throw away government while hanging onto corruption in the boardroom. My evidence? You never hear them advocating the dismantling corporations with the same vigor that they rail against government. Their perception is corporations generate wealth so we don't want to interfere with that no matter how much corruption. However I like to steer the conversation towards, who do the corporations generate wealth for? Government serves a very important purpose. We must insist on the same moral standard for both entities.

 

[edgray]

The problem is people whether they are located in government or the corporate boardroom. The problem with many of our conservative contributors is that they want to throw away government while hanging onto corruption in the boardroom. My evidence? You never hear them advocating dismantling corporations with the same vigor that they rail against government. Government serves a very important purpose. We must insist on the same human standard for both entities.

that's very true. and what's even more astonishing to me is that corporations represent tyranny - we have zero say in what they do, whereas we at least have some choice with regards to our govts, they are accountable. Corporations aren't accountable to anyone other than their shareholders.

 

[Minor Axis]

that's very true. and what's even more astonishing to me is that corporations represent tyranny - we have zero say in what they do, whereas we at least have some choice with regards to our govts, they are accountable. Corporations aren't accountable to anyone other than their shareholders.

I don't think the shareholders are all that effective in controlling corporations these days.

One of my favorite moral discussion is how much $ does a moral person need to live on an annual basis- $500k, $1m, $3m, $10m, $20m? Our conservative friends will tell you by God they deserve all they can get by hard work and using their ingenuity. Sure if our society is based on every person for themselves. But society in addition to "me" is "we" and society must benefit the majority or it will not last. When corporate heads and other money changers start believing they deserve a fortune at the expense of others. then society is out of balance.

 

[edgray]

I don't think the shareholders are all that effective in controlling corporations these days.

One of my favorite moral discussion is how much $ does a moral person need to live on an annual basis- $500k, $1m, $3m, $10m, $20m? Our conservative friends will tell you by God they deserve all they can get by hard work and using their ingenuity. Sure if our society is based on every person for themselves. But society in addition to "me" is "we" and society must benefit the majority or it will not last. When corporate heads and other money changers start believing they deserve a fortune at the expense of others. then society is out of balance.

you have to be a major shareholder to have any clout.

thats a good point. From a moral standpoint, I would say something like 100,000K would be more than enough for most, and will provide a bloody decent standard of living.

I've never understood how the rich have "earned" all that money. How much more work can they physically do to justify so much more than everyone else? And it has nothing to do with "importance" of their work: doctors, police, nurses, engineers, teachers, scientists - these people contribute much more to society, and are far more important and necessary than any boardroom member or CEO.

It's only the conservatives holding back us changing this situation. For some reason they're happy for people to be taking more than their fair share. It's a ludicrous situation we have ourselves in. What makes it worse is the fact that when it comes down to it, the rich are totally expendable and unnecessary.

I remember watching Ray Santelli on the floor of some trading room having a go at the "average schmuck" as he called them for daring to get into a little debt and needing some help from the govt. Refusing of course to admit that the reason the "average schmuck" is struggling is simply down to him and his fellow parasite's greed and stupidity. He totally berated pretty much everyone in society apart from traders, bankers, and other rich folk. It made me think of a world without his ilk: essentially it would function perfectly and they wouldn't be missed. However, flip the coin, remove the "average schmucks" from the world and you're left with a bunch of rich people unable to eat or do anything because the "average schmucks" that run society have gone and only the leeches and parasites remain. And that's exactly what the rich are.

 

[Accountable]

Sure there are dozens of reasons that the recession could be attributed to, but to neglect the fact that just before the great depression and just before the recent recession, the top 1% were pulling in a staggering 25% of the wages in society.

Correlation is not causation.

The problem is people whether they are located in government or the corporate boardroom. The problem with many of our conservative contributors is that they want to throw away government while hanging onto corruption in the boardroom. My evidence? You never hear them advocating the dismantling corporations with the same vigor that they rail against government. Their perception is corporations generate wealth so we don't want to interfere with that no matter how much corruption. However I like to steer the conversation towards, who do the corporations generate wealth for? Government serves a very important purpose. We must insist on the same moral standard for both entities.

Corporat wonks are doing exactly what's expected of them. Gov't representatives are supposed to stand against the corruption. Business is not gov't & vice versa. If politicians did their job, corporations would not be a problem.

You're blaming the rats for eating the grain rather than the farmhand for leaving the door open.

 

[edgray]

Correlation is not causation.

Very true.

But I would consider this a pretty logical conclusion. The money from the top doesn't keep society going, it's the money 90% of the population are spending to live their lives. When the money heads it's way upwards, the majority have less to spend.

 

[Accountable]

I submit that the rich hoard and hide their riches because of the high taxation. If they could trust that they would not lose such a high percentage to the government, they would invest more. That investment, not government taxing & spending, is what creates the jobs that bring in the disposable income that fuels the economic engine that increases the standard of living that prompts the desire that creates the workorder that ends in the house that Jack built.

(See what I did there? That's high-level creativity, that is.)

 

[Tim]

I submit that the rich hoard and hide their riches because of the high taxation. If they could trust that they would not lose such a high percentage to the government, they would invest more. That investment, not government taxing & spending, is what creates the jobs that bring in the disposable income that fuels the economic engine that increases the standard of living that prompts the desire that creates the workorder that ends in the house that Jack built.

(See what I did there? That's high-level creativity, that is.)

Instead of hiding it to avoid taxation, they could just reinvest the money into their companies instead of skimming it off the top...

 

[edgray]

I submit that the rich hoard and hide their riches because of the high taxation. If they could trust that they would not lose such a high percentage to the government, they would invest more. That investment, not government taxing & spending, is what creates the jobs that bring in the disposable income that fuels the economic engine that increases the standard of living that prompts the desire that creates the workorder that ends in the house that Jack built.

(See what I did there? That's high-level creativity, that is.)

lol! Very creative!

The thing is I'm not talking about money they're hiding, I'm just talking about hoarding. You see, a wealthy person that may, say, have 1,000 times the money of the average joe, won't eat 1,000 times the amount of food. Or buy 1,000 times the amount of newspapers and clothes. Nor will he buy 1,000 times the computers, DVDs, dry cleaning etc etc. And that's the problem, then money the rich get doesn't make it into general circulation, it doesn't end up in the tils of normal shops either, only luxury high-end shops that just further line other rich folk's pockets.

Once the money heads up beyond the point of the middle classes, it's as good as gone in the eyes of society.

Take a look at this, for example:

AS you can see, in spite of the fact that the rich have gotten much, much richer over the past few decades, everyone else is actually worse off in comparison.

 

[edgray]

 

[Accountable]

lol! Very creative!

The thing is I'm not talking about money they're hiding, I'm just talking about hoarding. You see, a wealthy person that may, say, have 1,000 times the money of the average joe, won't eat 1,000 times the amount of food. Or buy 1,000 times the amount of newspapers and clothes. Nor will he buy 1,000 times the computers, DVDs, dry cleaning etc etc. And that's the problem, then money the rich get doesn't make it into general circulation, it doesn't end up in the tils of normal shops either, only luxury high-end shops that just further line other rich folk's pockets.

Once the money heads up beyond the point of the middle classes, it's as good as gone in the eyes of society.

Take a look at this, for example:

AS you can see, in spite of the fact that the rich have gotten much, much richer over the past few decades, everyone else is actually worse off in comparison.

"in comparison" meaning relatively, right? Other people are worse off relative to the ones who are better off. Ed, that's meaningless. My coworker and I make the same wage. If I get a raise, he is worse off in comparison, but he has not lost any buying power. His real situation hasn't changed. If I get a large raise and he gets a slightly less impressive raise, he is still worse off in comparison to me even though his situation has undeniably improved.

I'm more an anarchist than you are.

 

[edgray]

"in comparison" meaning relatively, right? Other people are worse off relative to the ones who are better off. Ed, that's meaningless. My coworker and I make the same wage. If I get a raise, he is worse off in comparison, but he has not lost any buying power. His real situation hasn't changed. If I get a large raise and he gets a slightly less impressive raise, he is still worse off in comparison to me even though his situation has undeniably improved.

I'm more an anarchist than you are.

Just look at the average hourly wage. AVERAGE. It hasn't changed in 40 years. Now look at the wealth of the elites. That certainly has changed with more millionaires and billionaires than ever before.

It most certainly isn't meaningless when you've got a tiny fraction of society doing what the cartoon I posted shows: urinating on everyone from a great height.

The difference between you and me is that you've got your mouth open nice and wide.

 

[retro]

Instead of hiding it to avoid taxation, they could just reinvest the money into their companies instead of skimming it off the top...

Or they could just be like a good chunk of the Obama cabinet and just not pay taxes at all

 

[Accountable]

Just look at the average hourly wage. AVERAGE. It hasn't changed in 40 years. Now look at the wealth of the elites. That certainly has changed with more millionaires and billionaires than ever before.

It most certainly isn't meaningless when you've got a tiny fraction of society doing what the cartoon I posted shows: urinating on everyone from a great height.

The difference between you and me is that you've got your mouth open nice and wide.

Our difference is that you rate success as relative to others'. So long as others have more you will always judge yourself as having less.

Btw, the chart you posted shows no indication whatever about hoarding wealth. Real wages go down because of inflation, which in today's society is a result of government manipulation of markets and money supply.

 

[edgray]

Our difference is that you rate success as relative to others'. So long as others have more you will always judge yourself as having less.

Btw, the chart you posted shows no indication whatever about hoarding wealth. Real wages go down because of inflation, which in today's society is a result of government manipulation of markets and money supply.

Success is totally relative and I don't see how it could be argued to the contrary.

The cartoon was about the trickle down effect, which is the general justification for the ridiculous greed of the elites.

That last statement of yours needs flushing out. How have the govts manipulated the money supply and markets?

 

[retro]

oh, and as far as the claim about the GOP not wanting to introduce or pass an energy bill....

Out of the most tedious congressional debate sometimes comes a little ray of policy sunshine. The GOP got a glimmer this week.

As congressional Democrats plotted how to make their "oil-spill" legislation a political liability for Republicans, and as Republicans flapped over how to avoid that fate, one GOP member excused himself from the circus. California Rep. Devin Nunes instead unveiled his "Energy Roadmap," a companion bill to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's plan for tax and spending reform. Mr. Nunes wants to get his party thinking about a modern, principled energy policy. Lord knows the GOP could use the help.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703578104575397652539348486.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The rest of the article is on his blog...

http://devinnunes.blogspot.com/2010/07/gop-energy-alternative.html

And of particular note

Calif. Rep. Devin Nunes's nuclear proposal would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic plan on the table

Rather than throw federal loan guarantees at uncertain nuclear plants, the legislation attacks the true problem: bureaucratic roadblocks. It streamlines a creaky regulatory process, requires the timely up-or-down approval of 200 plants over 30 years, and offers new flexibility for dealing with nuclear waste. Mr. Nunes likes to point out that his nuclear provision alone would do more to reduce carbon emissions than any Democratic proposal in existence. And it would in fact create, ahem, green jobs. Imagine that.

 

[Accountable]

Success is totally relative and I don't see how it could be argued to the contrary.

Are you really serious? You can't feel good about your own progress unless you do better than someone else? If you decide to run every morning before work, within a few days you'll start feeling better in general. If you find out that someone else started running the same day you did, and now runs twice as far, that does not mean you are less healthy than you started out. It does not mean you haven't been successful in improving your health. [/quote]

The cartoon was about .

I wrote "the chart", meaning that graph in the post before the cartoon.

That last statement of yours needs flushing out. How have the govts manipulated the money supply and markets?

That's the job of the national bank, isn't it? They set and adjust interest rates, and create more or reduce fiat money, to manipulate markets, spur growth, promote investment, and fool the electorate into believing they have more wealth when in fact they only have more (but cheaper) money.