Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I take the easy way out when it comes to creationism/evolution. I believe God started it all, gave the evolutionary snowball the proverbial kick down the mountainside and tada! We're here!

Which is sort of a nice deistic way to fit your deity into things. Prime mover/first cause/god of the gaps. Doesn't really answer anything and leads to more questions about the nature of this deity and why/how you know it exists, on top of making them completely inconsequential. But it does have the huge bonus of not being bound by dogma. Always a good thing.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Which is sort of a nice deistic way to fit your deity into things. Prime mover/first cause/god of the gaps. Doesn't really answer anything and leads to more questions about the nature of this deity and why/how you know it exists, on top of making them completely inconsequential. But it does have the huge bonus of not being bound by dogma. Always a good thing.

Precisely. As I think I read on bash.org. I have no issue with God, I believe in one, it's his fan club I have a problem with.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I have no issue with God, I believe in one, it's his fan club I have a problem with.

Is it too early in the thread to declare a winner?

You must spread...

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Another oldie but goody. We made money with TARP (lets ignore toxic asset bough by Fed and the government guarantees).
so citi at $5 x 2.4billion shares = $12billion or so "profit".
wow lets do more TARP to create jobs and make money for taxpayers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-plans-to-sell-24B-shares-apf-775287489.html?x=0

I'm surprised the GAO/CBO were able to calculate it, I think their spreadsheets only have input from taxes and everything else is labeled under Waste or Mis-management...they were probably shocked the numbers didn't have a minus sign before them

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So, providing there isn't a major rebellion in the Democratic ranks, the tax cuts deal looks pretty close to done. And liberals are taking it well...

"This is the president's Gettysburg," Rep. Jim McDermott, a leading progressive and a subcommittee chairman on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told POLITICO Monday.
He's going to have to decide whether he's going to withstand Pickett's charge ... I worry."

Nice to see we're keeping it in perspective, Mr. McDermott.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I never understood the obsession with the catholic church... I mean, they have so much pull over what you do nowadays... wait, no they don't. I swear, most people are living out of imagining some sort of 1950s neitherworld that doesn't really exist.

People like to beat up on easy targets for past behavior. It's an easy way out of having reasoned discussion in a way that respects those you disagree with.

 

[pardonme]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So Republicans who all campaigned on reducing the deficit now want to reduce taxes, reduce payroll taxes (when social security trust fund is going to run out eventually anyway), and increase spending. Sounds like Washington is really changing!

Also, the Democrats are idiots. They barely publicized the vote last Saturday where Republicans blocked extending the tax cuts for all of the lower brackets. If they had a spine they would have forced the issue on extending all the lower tax bracket cuts, and then forced a vote specifically on the top 2%. Then if the Republicans block everything you just say they voted for raising taxes for everyone.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Also, the Democrats are idiots. They barely publicized the vote last Saturday where Republicans blocked extending the tax cuts for all of the lower brackets. If they had a spine they would have forced the issue on extending all the lower tax bracket cuts, and then forced a vote specifically on the top 2%. Then if the Republicans block everything you just say they voted for raising taxes for everyone.

Thats basically what they did except it was fillibustered in the Senate so it couldn't come up for a vote. Don't think that we won't see plenty of ads bringing that up in the next election cycle to play to the wealth envy crowd.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I take the easy way out when it comes to creationism/evolution. I believe God started it all, gave the evolutionary snowball the proverbial kick down the mountainside and tada! We're here!

I'd guess that this is the most prevalent view in the country.

 

[Biddco]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What the hell kind of thread title is this?!

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Thats basically what they did except it was fillibustered in the Senate so it couldn't come up for a vote. Don't think that we won't see plenty of ads bringing that up in the next election cycle to play to the wealth envy crowd.

Remember kids, it's only "class warfare" in one direction.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” -- Warren Buffett

The GOP has already given its donors what they promised. They can now blockade everything as a ramp-up to 2012. Their work is done.

At some point, people are going to start to wonder whether the Dems are truly this incompetent, or just paid off to be the Washington Generals. Not a whole lot of working class people left in the Dem caucus, either, now you mention it.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'd guess that this is the most prevalent view in the country.

It also doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.

How species evolve is a very different question than the origin of life as we know it.

Which is a fairly common evolution (pardon) of thought - science explains things that were once unexplainable. There's still a lot of stuff that we don't know and can't explain, and Faith often provides the narrative for that. And, when science can provide a proven, rational, empirical answer to those unknowns, then the balance will shift again.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It also doesn't really have anything to do with evolution.

How species evolve is a very different question than the origin of life as we know it.

Which is a fairly common evolution (pardon) of thought - science explains things that were once unexplainable. There's still a lot of stuff that we don't know and can't explain, and Faith often provides the narrative for that. And, when science can provide a proven, rational, empirical answer to those unknowns, then the balance will shift again.

Hence the term.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Remember kids, it's only "class warfare" in one direction.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.” -- Warren Buffett

The GOP has already given its donors what they promised. They can now blockade everything as a ramp-up to 2012. Their work is done.

At some point, people are going to start to wonder whether the Dems are truly this incompetent, or just paid off to be the Washington Generals. Not a whole lot of working class people left in the Dem caucus, either, now you mention it.

So what's stopping Buffett from giving more to the gov't. If he thinks the gov't knows best or he is that concerned aobut funding gov't he should gladly give more.

With 47% of the country paying no income tax and the top 10% paying 71% of the taxes its pretty easy to see which side is winning.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

the top 10% paying 71% of the taxes its pretty easy to see which side is winning.

Not at all. We both know that as the wealth gap widens the top end will pay more, even as it reaps more. The choice is whether that inequality is good or not. I believe it's very bad, and not just for the country as a material entity (though it is) and not just because of the immiseration of millions (though it obviously does that as well) but because it threatens the ideals of the country. Small "d" democracy will continue to erode as we become a neo-medieval society with small islands of politically-connected economic elites amid an ocean of disenfranchised peasants.

I don't particularly care for the peasants, but it's not healthy for them to be getting such a screw job. If nothing else, it makes them likelier to get angry enough to throw the baby of democracy out with the bath water soiled by trickle down.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not at all. We both know that as the wealth gap widens the top end will pay "more," even as it reaps more. The choice is whether that inequality is good or not. I believe it's very bad, and not just for the country as a material entity (though it is) and not just because of the immiseration of millions (though it obviously does that as well) but or the ideals of the country. Small "d" democracy will continue to erode as we become a neo-medieval society with small islands of politically connected economic elites amid an ocean of disenfranchised peasants.

So you'd rather have a equal distribution of poverty over an unequal distribution of wealth. The ideals of this country were found directly around individual freedom. You can't claim to be keeping with the ideals of the country by taking freedom away from someone. The reason a democracy erodes is because those in power give the goodies to the masses at the expense of the individual making them more reliant on gov't thus keeping the political class in power. As the gov't power increases more and more political connections are needed to conduct business. This is usually done to drive out competition. You want to keep people from being disenfranchised, drastically cut the size and scope of gov't. You liked how it was in the 50's. The gov't was only 15% of GDP then. We're well over 25% now.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not at all. We both know that as the wealth gap widens the top end will pay more, even as it reaps more. The choice is whether that inequality is good or not. I believe it's very bad, and not just for the country as a material entity (though it is) and not just because of the immiseration of millions (though it obviously does that as well) but because it threatens the ideals of the country. Small "d" democracy will continue to erode as we become a neo-medieval society with small islands of politically-connected economic elites amid an ocean of disenfranchised peasants.

It does make sense that the high end pays a larger share of the total taxes, as their share of total income has also grown. I generally agree with you that this growing chasm between the rich and poor in this country, with less of a middle class, is a bad trend. I'm just not sure how it can be reversed, or meaningfully slowed down. Basic jobs that used to pay a good wage, in an industry like textiles, can now be done overseas for a small fraction of the cost, so those type of decent paying jobs just aren't around like they used to be. Even higher end jobs like engineering are increasingly going elsewhere. There is some job creation in other/new sectors, but it's pretty murky to try to figure out how one can restore/maintain the middle class in this country. Of course on the flip side, you have a sizable chunk of the population paying no federal income taxes and even maybe getting some credits back, and such a situation can lead to those folks pushing for more spending, since none of it is directly coming out of their own pocket. Problematic stuff all the way around.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So you'd rather have a equal distribution of poverty over an unequal distribution of wealth.

This is a nice slogan but it really doesn't have anything to do with reality. The richest and most stable nations have had a well-developed middle class and a low-skill labor pool that can still afford to feed, clothe and shelter itself. I'd rather have Sweden than Saudi Arabia.

The ideals of this country were found directly around individual freedom.

There are other founding ideals of social justice and man helping man to create a civilized community. You can't just pick and choose. Read "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" or any of a hundred other well-researched histories of the period. Much of the impetus of the drive for independence came from the feeling that the communitarian roots of colonial government -- the town meets and church congregations -- were being overrun by commerical interests only concerned with the British merchants' bottom line.

You can't claim to be keeping with the ideals of the country by taking freedom away from someone.

All freedoms conflict at the edges -- otherwise, life would be easy. Also, having a genuine free society implies that everyone can participate in it at at least some basic level. Hungry people are not free to ignore their hunger. Saying "you have to feed everybody" is not the same as the strawman argument "nobody may eat better than anyone else."

The reason a democracy erodes is because those in power give the goodies to the masses at the expense of the individual making them more reliant on gov't thus keeping the political class in power.

You don't think this doesn't happen in reverse? You don't think the top 10% are dependent on the GOP to secure their tax breaks, and that the energy they put inot that couldn't be far better spent actually making things of value? I agree with your basic premise, but let's not kid ourselves -- every party sets up a trough, it's only a question of which pigs are feeding at it.

As the gov't power increases more and more political connections are needed to conduct business. This is usually done to drive out competition. You want to keep people from being disenfranchised, drastically cut the size and scope of gov't. You liked how it was in the 50's. The gov't was only 15% of GDP then. We're well over 25% now.

And the world is more complicated and more interconnected, and people have made a lot of democratic political decisions saying they will countenance greater overhead in exchange for, say, clean air and drinking water.

However, you are moving your argument around. You maintain we need to give the rich greater and greater tax breaks of the economy will fail, but the economy failed with the wealthy paying their lowest relative burden in decades, and the economy functioned well overall with the "confiscatory" rates of the 1950's. Your basic argument that all taxes always damped economic activity is simply wrong and amply refuted by history. Lots of things factor into the health of the economy. Taxes are part of it, but the single-minded determination of the right to hold the highest rate down and the hell with all consequences is part of why we are where we are now.

Your One True Faith is a lie. The answer posited is not a contrary One True Faith, but an open-minded discussion with everything on the table.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I don't particularly care for the peasants, .

By now that goes without saying, doesn't it?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

One can make the argument that Obama is a hugely centrist president. And in fact, not anywhere near the 'socialist' claims conservatives have been making.

Many of his moves have not been overly liberal...between his economics based on his team to his military approach to something as huge as US taxation. Indeed, the policies that he's been dinged for such as higher spending and company bailouts...have been driven due to a critical need to salvage the countrys economy and get it jump started again rather than a overtly bias to spending (as could be seen with big spenders under prosperous times).

Its unfortunate that a huge proponent of uniting this country may get drilled by the left, who feels that he's not extreme enough...and the right, who would never have given him a chance anyways.