Eric Cantor: fighting the good fight for America’s billionaires.

possibly said:
Eric Cantor: fighting the good fight for America’s billionaires.

Fact: It’s a spending problem moron no a tax problem. Get a job join the fun!

possibly said:
Eric Cantor: fighting the good fight for America’s billionaires.

That is such a load of juvenile crap. Let’s just say your right, that’s 412 billionaires you twit. You could confiscate all their wealth (not just income) and never put dent in the trillions we owe.

Class warfare is all you got, no math skills obviously.

Similarly, now is not the time to cut spending, according to Simpson-Bowles, at least.

Publius219 said:
Similarly, now is not the time to cut spending, according to Simpson-Bowles, at least.

Cut spending? Gee, ya think?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/07/do-we-really-have-a-revenue-problem/

We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Publius219 said:
Similarly, now is not the time to cut spending, according to Simpson-Bowles, at least.

Why would we cut spending? Just because we have no money, are deep deep deep in debt, and seem to be wasting money left and right… why would we need to stop or fix any of that?

It’s like I tell everyone… just because you don’t have any money in your pocket, it doesn’t mean you can’t go and buy yourself something nice and expensive. I’m sure you’ll figure out how to pay for eventually. Don’t worry about it now. It’s someone else’s problem.

I find it stupendously humorous watching Republicans like Eric Cantor preach fiscal discipline. He is just one of many congressional Republicans who rubber stamped without question Bush’s wars and outright explosion in government spending not seen since FDR!! Of course, everything is different now that a Democrat occupies the White House. Republicans have to make raising the debt ceiling a partisan issue all of a sudden. Oh. Any my favorite. The Republicans suddenly care about the costs of military intervention criticizing Obama over Libya. LMAO.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: It’s a spending problem moron no a tax problem. Get a job join the fun!

Yo dude,

swede here … you know we have, like 3 times the taxes as you guys have, and everything works out fine! We might have a better economi today then you guys. So please, don’t tell me you can’t raise taxes because can!

pz.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: It’s a spending problem moron no a tax problem. Get a job join the fun!

Oh, you and your “facts.” You’re just *adorable.*

Fact: it’s a spending AND a revenue problem, dummy, just like it is in every household in the USA.

WillP said:
I find it stupendously humorous watching Republicans like Eric Cantor preach fiscal discipline. He is just one of many congressional Republicans who rubber stamped without question Bush’s wars and outright explosion in government spending not seen since FDR!! Of course, everything is different now that a Democrat occupies the White House. Republicans have to make raising the debt ceiling a partisan issue all of a sudden. Oh. Any my favorite. The Republicans suddenly care about the costs of military intervention criticizing Obama over Libya. LMAO.

What’s different now you simpleton is that your current administration has written checks it can’t possibly cover. What happened in 2002-2008 is debatable, what we are doing doing today is just plain economic suicide. Blame whoever you want if it makes you feel better, the sad fact is we don’t have any money left and all your Cantor bitching and Bush bashing won’t get your neighbor a job, or turn this economy around.

It’s like my teenage daughter’s room, when she says “so & so trashed my room when they slept over” and that’s supposed to somehow mitigate any real need to clean up the mess.

Jesus you people are like children.

AmericaSucks said:
Oh, you and your “facts.” You’re just *adorable.* Fact: it’s a spending AND a revenue problem, dummy, just like it is in every household in the USA.

How many household do you know that go out and “raise their revenue”?

WillP said:
I find it stupendously humorous watching Republicans like Eric Cantor preach fiscal discipline. He is just one of many congressional Republicans who rubber stamped without question Bush’s wars and outright explosion in government spending not seen since FDR!!

Which was also “rubber stamped” by the Democrats, and continued through their administration.

Of course, everything is different now that a Democrat occupies the White House.

At what point do Democrats take any responsibility for anything? Or is it always going to be “someone else’s fault?”

Republicans have to make raising the debt ceiling a partisan issue all of a sudden.

So they should continue to ignore it, and hope it goes away?

Oh. Any my favorite. The Republicans suddenly care about the costs of military intervention criticizing Obama over Libya. LMAO.

You could reverse that too… apparently when Bush was in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was a terrible expenditure. When Obama is there, it’s what we “need” to do, and a good thing… and if he involves us in more conflicts, that’s good too. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s just a different standard…. right?

timzank said:
That is such a load of juvenile crap. Let’s just say your right, that’s 412 billionaires you twit. You could confiscate all their wealth (not just income) and never put dent in the trillions we owe.

Class warfare is all you got, no math skills obviously.

Nominal dollars ignore revenue in the context of GDP… As a percent revenue is at a historic low… The revenue problem is a prime driver in the growth of the debt.

AmericaSucks said:
Oh, you and your “facts.” You’re just *adorable.* Fact: it’s a spending AND a revenue problem, dummy, just like it is in every household in the USA.

And if adhere to the comment in your avatar, why on Earth do you live in America? Shouldn’t you live in another country?

timzank said:
How many household do you know that go out and “raise their revenue”?

Well, LOTS of people work more than one job, or look for better jobs, or ask for raises, or even have yard sales to, oh, you know: RAISE THEIR REVENUES!!!!!

Could you at least try? I’m getting bored with swatting at your mosquitoes.

The Dems believe you can stimulate the economy by taking more money away from people.

timzank said:
And if adhere to the comment in your avatar, why on Earth do you live in America? Shouldn’t you live in another country?

Freedom of speech, my good man. Look into it. It’s enshrined in the “Constitution” thing….

There’s freedom of speech, but staying in a place you think sucks doesn’t seem very bright.

Anyone can go to the White House website and download the information on taxes and spending, and what they show is that since WWII, tax revenues as a % of GDP have averaged around 18%, and that is regardless of what the tax rates were (they’re well below that now, but that’s because of the economic problems). In fact, revenues as % of GDP were higher in 2007 (with the evil Bush tax cuts in place) than in most of the 1950′s, when the top marginal income tax rates were around 90%.

If revenue as % of GDP over the long run is pretty much immune to changes in the tax rate, then the way you increase revenue over the long run is to increase GDP. Cantor is absolutely right on this. And you don’t increase GDP by jacking up tax rates. Closing loopholes is fine, if you do it in a way that is revenue neutral in the short run (i.e., lower rates at the same time) to avoid a sudden shock to the economy; if I recall correctly, one of the reasons for the real estate meltdown that caused the S&L crisis in the 80′s was changes in the tax code. In the long run, lowering rates and simplifying the tax code by closing loopholes would benefit the economy thus resulting in increased revenue for the government.

In addition, spending as a % of GDP has averaged around 20% over the same time period, and any time the spending as a % of GDP is higher than the revenue as a % of GDP, you’re going to have a deficit. Since revenue as a % of GDP has been fairly immune to government action over the long run, if we want to get rid of the deficit and pay down the debt, spending cuts are the only way to reliably do that.

I hate to disappoint the White House, the Democrats, and the MSNBC crowd, but this is reality.

possibly said:
Eric Cantor: fighting the good fight for America’s billionaires.

couldn’t have said it better myself

Perdido said:
The Dems believe you can stimulate the economy by taking more money away from people.

translation: “i think the middle class should pay more”

note to perdido: someone has to pay the bills. you appear to be arguing that we,
the middle class, should pay more, and the wealthy should pay less.

you know you’re living in a classic orwellian nightmare when middle class people
start defending billionaires, and attacking their middle class friends/family.

Dude is such a smarmy little asshole, as our country gets poorer and the actual hard-working Americans suffer, The CEO jackasses and lazy people sitting around soaking up the excess cash.

darladoon, when I said the Dems want to take more money from people, that wasn’t an endorsement for doing it. I was arguing against it. And you keep saying to stick it to the rich as if that will solve everything. As I and others have said, if you took every dime from every billionaire in the country, it would barely put a dent in the fifteen trillion national debt.

Publius219

AmericaSucks said:

darladoon said:

funny how all you guys think someone else should cover you. why wont you make a sacrifice? dont you realize how ridiculous you look?

timzank said:
And if adhere to the comment in your avatar, why on Earth do you live in America? Shouldn’t you live in another country?

You think that’s odd… ask him about WHY he thinks America sucks. It boils down to, “I don’t like that there are people who disagree with me,” and then a bunch of common problems no matter where you live.

This new persona of Royal’s is easily his worst. Just really dumb.

AmericaSucks said:
Freedom of speech, my good man. Look into it. It’s enshrined in the “Constitution” thing….

Um, that didn’t answer the question at all. It answers the question, “Why do you keep complain about America?” with the simple answer of, “Because I can.” But it doesn’t answer why you live here. Why would you stay in a place that you so dislike?

Snowspot said:
Dude is such a smarmy little asshole, as our country gets poorer and the actual hard-working Americans suffer, The CEO jackasses and lazy people sitting around soaking up the excess cash.

Heck, why not just steal things then? Those CEOs and rich people, let’s just go over to their homes and take stuff? After all, why shouldn’t what they’ve earned be ours? Why do they get to profit off their work, when we don’t?

We could pull a Castro and just confiscate all of our rich people’s money. Just take it. All of it. Then put it toward the national debt. It’d pay off maybe one percent of it. Now what?

ImNotBlue said:
You think that’s odd… ask him about WHY he thinks America sucks. It boils down to, “I don’t like that there are people who disagree with me,” and then a bunch of common problems no matter where you live. This new persona of Royal’s is easily his worst. Just really dumb. Um, that didn’t answer the question at all. It answers the question, “Why do you keep complain about America?” with the simple answer of, “Because I can.” But it doesn’t answer why you live here. Why would you stay in a place that you so dislike? Heck, why not just steal things then? Those CEOs and rich people, let’s just go over to their homes and take stuff? After all, why shouldn’t what they’ve earned be ours? Why do they get to profit off their work, when we don’t?

Not surprising such a small-minded invidivual would get that out of my post. Why did you create this strange little story where I think it’s OK to steal?

You’re someone who’s a follower… and quite frankly, I don’t care about your views on CEO pay.. because you don’t GET it.. you don’t undertand the concept of our country and that Americans are more important than big business. So I’m not going to explain why it’s not OK to steal from people.. because a moron like you wouldn’t understand that anyway, I mean look at the crap you just wrote, why do people in bother trying to talk sense into you? You’re literally someone that has replaced god with rich people.. a very dangerous thing.. but hey, it’s great if you want a corrupt country.

Why stop at the rich?. Tax everyone, no deductions, no loopholes. Would that make libs happy? No, they need a boogeyman. How much revenue would that bring in? In addition, end the wars, cut redundant programs, eliminate waste, fraud…….
The class warfare schtick is getting old.

Snowspot, that’s kind of a convoluted argument as far as the poster using the name America Sucks. Yeah, he has freedome of speech. But it would be like saying there’s a restaurant where you hate the food, so that’s where you go every day for dinner. Seems pretty stupid to stay in a place you don’t like when you don’t have to.

Carl Emmoth said:
Yo dude, swede here … you know we have, like 3 times the taxes as you guys have, and everything works out fine! We might have a better economi today then you guys. So please, don’t tell me you can’t raise taxes because can! pz.

Fact: Do you own a house or a car? Didn’t think so. To many government restrictions right. Yo dude hows the view from the train? What a joke all I have to say is …. Hahahahahahahaha……………..

AmericaSucks said:
Oh, you and your “facts.” You’re just *adorable.* Fact: it’s a spending AND a revenue problem, dummy, just like it is in every household in the USA.

Fact: No it’s not. My two houses I own are just fine.Hahahahahahaha……..

Greg said:
Nominal dollars ignore revenue in the context of GDP… As a percent revenue is at a historic low… The revenue problem is a prime driver in the growth of the debt.

Fact: Spending money you don’t have causes debt. What a genius. Brillant!

Snowspot said:
Not surprising such a small-minded invidivual would get that out of my post. Why did you create this strange little story where I think it’s OK to steal? You’re someone who’s a follower… and quite frankly, I don’t care about your views on CEO pay.. because you don’t GET it.. you don’t undertand the concept of our country and that Americans are more important than big business. So I’m not going to explain why it’s not OK to steal from people.. because a moron like you wouldn’t understand that anyway, I mean look at the crap you just wrote, why do people in bother trying to talk sense into you? You’re literally someone that has replaced god with rich people.. a very dangerous thing.. but hey, it’s great if you want a corrupt country.

Fact: Sticking your hands in others peoples pockets trying to steal their money is discusting. Get a job earn money yourself. Sorry if you are not as smart as a republican and can’t do it without stealing somebody elses.

When the Environmental Protection Agency said in late June that it would force Western coal-fired power plants to install haze-reducing pollution-control equipment at a cost of $1.5 billion a year, it said it had to in order to settle a lawsuit by environmental groups.

One organization involved in the suit, the Environmental Defense Fund, has a long history of taking the EPA to court. In fact, a cursory review finds almost half a dozen cases in the past 10 years.

The odd thing is that the EPA, in turn, has handed EDF $2.76 million in grants over that same period, according to an IBD review of the agency’s grant database.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577430/201107061817/EPA-Funds-Greens-That-Sue-It.aspx?src=HPLNews

Typical bureaucratic arrogance mixed with a strong dose of stupidity. Giving taxpayer money to a left wing extremist group so they can sue the government.

jddoubleu said:
funny how all you guys think someone else should cover you. why wont you make a sacrifice? dont you realize how ridiculous you look?

Feel free to comment when you’re anywhere near my tax bracket, dummy. Until then, quit yer yappin’.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: No it’s not. My two houses I own are just fine.Hahahahahahaha……..

FACT: I am happy that you were given those houses, and apparently didn’t have to raise any revenue to buy them. You are truly blessed.

Eric Cantor= Broken record.

Eric says…
…”that people in this country who are on tough times right now, the best thing for them and what they want is a job”

I think we can all agree what is needed in this country are jobs. But what kind of jobs? Are Minimum to sub-minimum wage jobs acceptable? Will that do the trick? Will those types of jobs turn the economy around? Will working class Americans be happy with those types of jobs? Or are the Republicans guaranteeing that the jobs created, by the economy, will be decent fair paying jobs that allows the worker a decent wage to provide comfortably for his/her family?

AmericaSucks said:
Feel free to comment when you’re anywhere near my tax bracket, dummy. Until then, quit yer yappin’.

nagger please…
we already established i make more than you.

So in a country that sucks, you’ve been successful enough to be in a tax bracket you brag about? No wonder you bitch about America, but continue to stay.

AmericaSucks said:
Feel free to comment when you’re anywhere near my tax bracket, dummy. Until then, quit yer yappin’.

Fact: If you paid taxes you would know that it’s a crock like alternative minimium tax. What kind of democrat crap was that?

AmericaSucks said:
FACT: I am happy that you were given those houses, and apparently didn’t have to raise any revenue to buy them. You are truly blessed.

Fact: Hahahahahahaha……. loony liberal you so funny… Hahahahahaha………………

Bruce said:
Eric Cantor= Broken record. Eric says……”that people in this country who are on tough times right now, the best thing for them and what they want is a job” I think we can all agree what is needed in this country are jobs. But what kind of jobs? Are Minimum to sub-minimum wage jobs acceptable? Will that do the trick? Will those types of jobs turn the economy around? Will working class Americans be happy with those types of jobs? Or are the Republicans guaranteeing that the jobs created, by the economy, will be decent fair paying jobs that allows the worker a decent wage to provide comfortably for his/her family?

Fact: Eric Cantor one of the many hero’s of the Tea Party.

Staying in a place that you think sucks. Even animals have better sense than that.

Snowspot said:
Not surprising such a small-minded invidivual would get that out of my post. Why did you create this strange little story where I think it’s OK to steal?

Well, tell us why you think the government has the right to take more and more money from the rich. Apparently you think they’re an unending source of funds, and the government has the right to just demand more whenever it needs some. To me, that’s stealing.

You’re someone who’s a follower… and quite frankly, I don’t care about your views on CEO pay.. because you don’t GET it.. you don’t undertand the concept of our country and that Americans are more important than big business.

So the CEO’s aren’t “Americans?” Who are “Americans” to you?

So I’m not going to explain why it’s not OK to steal from people.. because a moron like you wouldn’t understand that anyway, I mean look at the crap you just wrote, why do people in bother trying to talk sense into you?

Got it, you have no answers… just ad hominem attacks. Very clear.

You’re literally someone that has replaced god with rich people.. a very dangerous thing.. but hey, it’s great if you want a corrupt country.

Really? Where did you get that from?

And do you believe that all big business is “corrupt?” All CEO’s are “corrupt?” All wealthy people are “corrupt?” Is that your opinion?

Perdido said:
Staying in a place that you think sucks. Even animals have better sense than that.

Well, why don’t YOU leave? The place would suck a lot less then…

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Eric Cantor one of the many hero’s of the Tea Party.

Fact: You don’t know the difference between plural and possessive forms.

jddoubleu said:
nagger please…
we already established i make more than you.

Hmmm… I don’t recall that. I DO recall laying out my income in quite modest ways, and then your not replying to what I said. But please, do go on.

Bruce said:
I think we can all agree what is needed in this country are jobs. But what kind of jobs? Are Minimum to sub-minimum wage jobs acceptable? Will that do the trick? Will those types of jobs turn the economy around? Will working class Americans be happy with those types of jobs? Or are the Republicans guaranteeing that the jobs created, by the economy, will be decent fair paying jobs that allows the worker a decent wage to provide comfortably for his/her family?

Nancy Pelosi says that unemployment creates jobs faster than any other program, so it appears she is just fine with everyone being unemployed. She went further with that theory when she passed the HealthSCARE bill and said; “We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care. You won’t have to be job locked.”

So it basically comes down to Nasty Nan wants everyone unemployed to spur the economy so we can then pay for everyone’s healthcare with our new bustling economy.

Obama spend almost a trillion dollars on a “jobs” bill. Where are those jobs? Biden said we were going to be getting 500,000 new ones per month. Where are those?

2012freedom said:
Nancy Pelosi says that unemployment creates jobs faster than any other program, so it appears she is just fine with everyone being unemployed. She went further with that theory when she passed the HealthSCARE bill and said; “We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care. You won’t have to be job locked.”

So it basically comes down to Nasty Nan wants everyone unemployed to spur the economy so we can then pay for everyone’s healthcare with our new bustling economy.

Obama spend almost a trillion dollars on a “jobs” bill. Where are those jobs? Biden said we were going to be getting 500,000 new ones per month. Where are those?

Santorum said Obama has created 240 million jobs–that’s MUCH more than 500 thousand per month!

AmericaSucks said:
FACT: I am happy that you were given those houses, and apparently didn’t have to raise any revenue to buy them. You are truly blessed.

Typical Liberal. They think everyone was just “given” things because they can’t fathom actually having to work to get something.

Cantor is a far-right robot. Just wind him up and out come the talking points.

America Sucks, I’m not the one saying it sucks. Why are you staying? If a bird builds a nest in a place it doesn’t like, it makes one somewhere else. You’re not even that smart?

Perdido said:
America Sucks, I’m not the one saying it sucks. Why are you staying? If a bird builds a nest in a place it doesn’t like, it makes one somewhere else. You’re not even that smart?

What? Leave? And give up my chance to torment mouth-breathers like you? Never!

Well, if you’re staying in a place that makes you miserable for such a pitiful reason, that says a lot.

Perdido said:
Well, if you’re staying in a place that makes you miserable for such a pitiful reason, that says a lot.

Well, one of the things it shows is your inability to distinguish between reasoning and instinctive behavior. Birds stay where they are (and/or migrate) because of instinct. Humans, on the other hand, weigh costs and benefits and make a decision. In other words, humans think–or at least most of them do. You I’m not so sure about.

Ratchet up the level of your discourse a bit and get back to me when you can put two thoughts together.

So you have even less excuse than the bird. The bird is going on instinct. You supposedly can think, and still choose to stay in a place you don’t like. Brilliant!

Perdido said:
So you have even less excuse than the bird. The bird is going on instinct. You supposedly can think, and still choose to stay in a place you don’t like. Brilliant!

You fail to understand. Typical Republitard: you’re only able to think in simple binary terms. This is why negotation and discussion with your ilk are futile. You’re not bad people; you just aren’t capable of nuanced thought.

Good luck to you, my friend. Go and stare at an on/off switch somewhere. It’ll help affirm your view of the universe.

BTW, King, you’re still not fooling anyone.

AmericaSucks said:
Santorum said Obama has created 240 million jobs–that’s MUCH more than 500 thousand per month!

Well thank God since Nancy Pelosi claimed two separate times that without the Obama stimulus plan that America would lose 500 million jobs per month. Can you imagine the devastation? No wonder they had to pass it.

So, I see your flat 240 million and raise you 500 million per month. Your turn to ante.

2012freedom said:
Well thank God since Nancy Pelosi claimed two separate times that without the Obama stimulus plan that America would lose 500 million jobs per month. Can you imagine the devastation? No wonder they had to pass it.

So, I see your flat 240 million and raise you 500 million per month. Your turn to ante.

Ask Santorum. I get all my numbers from him.

i have yet to hear a single conservative at mediaite actually explain to the rest of us
how raising the tax rate on millionaires and billionaires a few % points is going to:

a) increase the deficit

b) lose jobs

c) hurt the financial markets

because they know it won’t do any of the above.

Eric Cantor, rich republican from VA, caters to big business, filthy rich, and defends the rich tooth and nail. As a Virginia citizen who wants to see Cantor defeated in the next election, I want him to try to be a man and say”, I will not vote for any tax raises to the rich, the corporations, and big business, or myself. I will only take away social security, medicare/medicaid from the poor, because I am as greedy and corrupt as the rest of the players. Cantor hasn’t represented VA in months, but has made multiple media appearances, to show how tough on the poor and elderly he can be. The site of him, makes me nauseaous. Does cantor not know we “takers” that are poor and miserable still can vote?

and the argument that “even if we took 100% of the money of the richest 400 people, we wouldn’t
pay off the debt”…….is NOT an argument. it’s utterly moronic!!

how can you claim to be OH SO concerned about the debt and not want to increase
revenue by…….what…..almost 3 trillion?

that’s A LOT of money, folks.

and NOBODY is proposing that we “take” or “steal” these people’s money

we’re talking about legally increasing taxes a few % points on them to help
pay down the debt

hardly “stealing”

right now, the wealthy are actually stealing from us, by taking away medicare.

that’s stealing folks

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Spending money you don’t have causes debt. What a genius. Brillant!

In assessing Cantor’s assertion, it is important to understand that it is a time worn talking point that is more importantly false… try to follow me.

First, a brief history of the idea…
“We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we have not taxed enough,” said Reagan, “but we have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much.”

“That was where the spending/revenue line began. It got shortened by a decades-long game of telephone and focus-grouping, and only a few Republicans, like Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, try to credit the line to Reagan.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2291530/

This line was also recently employed by DeMint…
“Four of the last five years, we’ve had record levels of revenue. And next year we have projected the highest revenue levels in history. We don’t have a revenue problem.”

The talking point uses the measure of nominal dollars to assess revenues, a tool that only serves the talking point but not an understanding of the issue.

The CBO report below shows that we are operating at historically low rates of revenue… even with a 2% rise in revenue projected for next year we will still be well below the historic average and below any revenue level implemented during the Reagan years.

As the diagram below shows, no legislation has played a larger role in the growth of the debt than the 2001-2003 tax cuts…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/from-surplus-to-debt/2011/04/30/AFrYNfNF_graphic.html

In summation, the Republicans have reworked an old Reagan phrase and employed it with the use of an accounting that is meaningless to obscure the fact that their policy fetish on taxes has placed us into the hole they claim they can save us from through more dedicated digging.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml

Perdido said:
BTW, King, you’re still not fooling anyone.

I tried to warn you. He’s got no answer for why “America Sucks.” Just that he doesn’t like people who disagree with him, and gets some sort of pleasure out of “upsetting” them. Both are very immature and pretty pathetic.

But since it’s just another Royal persona, we shouldn’t be too surprised.

A much better headline would have been:

CREW OF MOURNING JOE ADVOCATES OBAMA TAX POLICY TO REPUBLICAN LEADER.

That would have been better, more honest, and spot on especially since NBC/MSNBC is now known as the mouth of the DNC0Obama /WTF campaign.

The problem is Eddie that as the rich get richer and richer they aren’t helping to create more jobs. You can repeat that talking point all you want but the fact is the wealth of this country has been moving towards the top for years now, Companies and their CEOs are making more than ever, and jobs are not being created. Instead you want to cut funds from people in need. All the while the freshman GOP elected on controlling spending are campaigning for federal funds.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/freshman-republicans-federal-spending_n_890518.html

TfT said:
CREW OF MOURNING JOE ADVOCATES OBAMA TAX POLICY TO REPUBLICAN LEADER.

We have a revenue problem and the Republicans are ignoring this reality to score political points… any responsible journalist must point this out.

COMRADES, CITIZENS,

Ah yes, I have arrived, and here you are, typical:

“My militant dandies, all strange order of monsters,

We welcome you to our procession.”

On this entire page, starting with ROKER and ending with, DARLADOON. None of you have made a substantive comment!

Enlighten me. Convince me of the error of my ways. I await, like “weird bait headed mongrels, I keep expecting one of you to rise.”

Show me, tell of the wisdom of our Leader. Will he make us safe? “Snug in the wooly cotton brains of infancy.”

PURVEY OF RHETORIC

CosmosDan said:
the rich get richer and richer they aren’t helping to create more jobs. You can repeat that talking point all you want but the fact is the wealth of this country has been moving towards the top for years now, Companies and their CEOs are making more than ever, and jobs are not being created. Instead you want to cut funds from people in need. All the while the freshman GOP elected on controlling spending are campaigning for federal funds.

COSMOS,

Do you equate success with theft? Do you equate wealth with dishonor?

darladoon said:
and NOBODY is proposing that we “take” or “steal” these people’s money

we’re talking about legally increasing taxes a few % points on them to help
pay down the debt

That is novel, a Leftist, arguing that as long as an issue is codified, by Law , then such is perfectly alright!

The word “usury” comes to mind, but thats not quite right. Maybeeee “exploitation?” Thats it! The Government can “exploit” the successful, to pay off the profligate spending of the past… But, hmm, what about the future?

You Socialists always have the answer, don’t you? LOL

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

According to the Republican establishment, never is the time to raise taxes, now is the time to lower them. And they pretend to be concerned about the debt and deficit.

purveyor said:
That is novel, a Leftist, arguing that as long as an issue is codified, by Law , then such is perfectly alright!

Taxation is a function of government… excluded only with the creation of an anarchist commune.

purveyor said:
Maybeeee “exploitation?” Thats it! The Government can “exploit” the successful

The successful benefit from government policy. The very existence of political order makes the accumulation of capital and property possible. The rights that empower the corporation are the consequence of judicial fiat. Subsidies, research dollars, grants and contracts provide economic benefit’s to those best placed in the social order.

purveyor said:
to pay off the profligate spending of the past

And the historic decline in revenue in part resultant a tax reduction strategy that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest…
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662116/infographic-who-benefits-from-the-republican-tax-plan

purveyor said:
But, hmm, what about the future?

The short term tax cut fetish of the right endangers our future…

purveyor said:
You Socialists always have the answer, don’t you? LOL

Fairness is a deeply American ideal that should inform policy.

GREG

Tell me, how and where did you acquire those responses. It is political philosophy, perhaps with your own take, but they came from somewhere or someone?

Danny Ross said:
According to the Republican establishment, never is the time to raise taxes, now is the time to lower them. And they pretend to be concerned about the debt and deficit.

DANNY,

You do know that it is NOT quite as simple as you make it sound? Conservatives do have “thinking caps” in their brief cases. LOL

purveyor said:
GREG

Tell me, how and where did you acquire those responses. It is political philosophy, perhaps with your own take, but they came from somewhere or someone?

I read aggressively and have since roughly the fourth grade. My responses are the amalgamation of countless sources and perspectives animated by my experience.

Come on GREG,

Break away from whatever it is you are cooking up with your “Anarchist Cookbook,” and tell us about that last chapter you read in “Rules for Radicals”? by Sol Alinsky (swell guy)

Purveyor

GREG,

I am a Philosopher and I can tell you the source or influence of virtually everything I say or write. Hence, I don’t believe you?

purveyor said:
Come on GREG,

Break away from whatever it is you are cooking up with your “Anarchist Cookbook,” and tell us about that last chapter you read in “Rules for Radicals”? by Sol Alinsky (swell guy)

Purveyor

Sorry to disappoint… currently re-reading “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” by Habermas and ironically enough, a pleasant little text titled, “The Road Ahead: America’s Creeping Revolution” by John T. Flynn. I do own Alinsky and yes, Cloward and Piven… but then again I can count the likes of Flynn, Bloom, Nye, Kissinger, Reagan, William Bennett, etc… amongst my thousands of books. But I doubt you know enough about such things to much care… here let me save you the time and write your response for you…

Ahem…

GREG,

Come on dude, stop typing in the public library and get back to your V.W. bus man… the revolution needs you.

Strange days have found us
And through their strange hours
We linger alone
Bodies confused
Memories misused
As we run from the day
To a strange night of stone

Purveyor

Greg said:
Sorry to disappoint… currently re-reading “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere” by Habermas and ironically enough, a pleasant little text titled, “The Road Ahead: America’s Creeping Revolution” by John T. Flynn. I do own Alinsky and yes, Cloward and Piven… but then again I can count the likes of Flynn, Bloom, Nye, Kissinger, Reagan, William Bennett, etc… amongst my thousands of books. But I doubt you know enough about such things to much care… here let me save you the time and write your response for you…

PINKO, (LOL)

Typically boorish, impolite and PRESUMPTUOUS of you to assume my forthcoming response. I digress.

Apparently I was correct as to the source of your response(s), wasn’t I? Your “ahem,” “library,” is indeed chocked full of Leftist literature. Furthermore, you could not answer my question(s) directly, rather, you seemed embarrassed by your Leftist proclivities. You should be. Shame on you.

Oh you try to deflect the evidence by testifying to you’re smattering of other reading interests, but, I called you, your Politics and psychological quirks correctly. Didn’t I? LOL

Note: (if you are not going to attribute a quote, poem, statement, etc. At least use quotation marks. Wouldn’t want anyone to think you wrote that piece.)

“The proliferation of laws in America, has become a shoddy excuse for self discipline”

A. Solzhenitsyn

purveyor says:
COSMOS,

Do you equate success with theft? Do you equate wealth with dishonor?

Absolutely not. I do hold to the Biblical passage, “to them that have more, more is required”
when society and the economy is is trouble , those that have more need to “sacrifice” if it can be realistically called that. What seems to have been happening since the crisis in 08 is that huge companies are doing better and better and better, and not turning profit into jobs. Realistically, they are not required to, but I think there is a certain moral and ethical responsibility that goes with success. I don’t understand c0onservatives talking about the salaries and benefits if teachers as if they’re too high, and then drawing a hard line when it comes to increasing taxes on the wealthy. I favor a reasonable progressive tax, or maybe a flat tax with no exemptions and a generous personal deduction. I’d also approve of limiting the deduction on kids so that people stop having huge families they can’t afford.

purveyor said:
PINKO, (LOL)

Typically boorish, impolite and PRESUMPTUOUS of you to assume my forthcoming response. I digress.

Apparently I was correct as to the source of your response(s), wasn’t I? Your “ahem,” “library,” is indeed chocked full of Leftist literature. Furthermore, you could not answer my question(s) directly, rather, you seemed embarrassed by your Leftist proclivities. You should be. Shame on you.

Oh you try to deflect the evidence by testifying to you’re smattering of other reading interests, but, I called you, your Politics and psychological quirks correctly. Didn’t I? LOL

Note: (if you are not going to attribute a quote, poem, statement, etc. At least use quotation marks. Wouldn’t want anyone to think you wrote that piece.)

I don’t know if I’d be calling anyone out on proper use of punctuation given some of the howlers in your reply to Greg….

Dummy.

Greg said:
I read aggressively and have since roughly the fourth grade. My responses are the amalgamation of countless sources and perspectives animated by my experience.

Greg, just wanted to say, I really appreciate how concise and relevant your posts are. Thanks. It’s nice to have a few posters who aren’t knee jerk partisans with talking points and little else.

AmericaSucks said:
I don’t know if I’d be calling anyone out on proper use of punctuation given some of the howlers in your reply to Greg….

I am sorry, but you must not have known the context of my counsel to GREG.

You see, it was not so much about grammar, as it was regarding potential plagiarism. You see Greg quoted a poem or piece of music. I thought it improper for anyone to think such was his, original work. The quotation marks would have removed that possibility.

I hope I have cleared that up for you. Thanks

CosmosDan said:
Absolutely not. I do hold to the Biblical passage, “to them that have more, more is required”
when society and the economy is is trouble , those that have more need to “sacrifice” if it can be realistically called that. What seems to have been happening since the crisis in 08 is that huge companies are doing better and better and better, and not turning profit into jobs. Realistically, they are not required to, but I think there is a certain moral and ethical responsibility that goes with success. I don’t understand c0onservatives talking about the salaries and benefits if teachers as if they’re too high, and then drawing a hard line when it comes to increasing taxes on the wealthy. I favor a reasonable progressive tax, or maybe a flat tax with no exemptions and a generous personal deduction. I’d also approve of limiting the deduction on kids so that people stop having huge families they can’t afford.

COSMO,

This is interesting. I’d like to comment on it, maybe talk more. Also, thank you for your comment on GREG. I am a Doors fan too. Every so often I insert tid bits from ‘An American Prayer” into the dialogue. He noticed that! LOL

Anyway, I am tired, BUT, I will comment on your Post tomorrow. Vaya con Dios

“I pressed her thigh and death smiled”

Who cares Cosmo

purveyor says:
Anyway, I am tired, BUT, I will comment on your Post tomorrow. Vaya con Dios

I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.

WhoDoYouThinkIsDeletingComments says:

Who cares Cosmo

Well, maybe the guy who said it was interesting. I assume you’re not being forced to read or comment.

CosmosDan said:
Greg, just wanted to say, I really appreciate how concise and relevant your posts are. Thanks. It’s nice to have a few posters who aren’t knee jerk partisans with talking points and little else.

Cheers… right back at you!

purveyor said:
PRESUMPTUOUS

This entire conversation has been your attempt to satisfy presumption. I will assume that you either do not mean or what you say or have trouble maintaining critical focus.

purveyor said:
Apparently I was correct as to the source of your response

If by “correct” you mean that I have knowledge of leftist sources then yes… If by “correct” you mean actively motivated by them no.

purveyor said:
Shame on you.

Casting anonymous shame for familiarity with a brand of thought… quite the philosopher you must be.

purveyor said:
Didn’t I? LOL

I can see that it would be impossible to convince you otherwise… presumption being both a means and an end for you.

purveyor said:
Note: (if you are not going to attribute a quote, poem, statement, etc. At least use quotation marks. Wouldn’t want anyone to think you wrote that piece.)

Not sure which piece you have in mind.

P.S.- You never did adress my argument regarding the spending vs revenue issue… must not be properly philosophical for your tastes.

Correction:

This entire conversation has been your attempt to satisfy presumption. I will assume that you either do not mean what you say or have trouble maintaining critical focus.

purveyor said:
You see Greg quoted a poem or piece of music.

Greg said:
Not sure which piece you have in mind.

I missed that bit it seems… I apologize to the estate of the late great Mr. Morrison for including a bit of lyric as part of a response to a fellow who stumbled into a conversation “quoting” the same author’s lyrics (though conspicuously absent the proper MLA formatting) after conflating my response to contemporary political issues with late mid century last radicalism… it is an error I only hope to recover from.

Purveyor likely left to tend the wounds you gave him from the series of verbal drummings you gave him Greg.
Thanks, it’s nice to see one of theirs take a beating, albeit one of vocabulary.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Eric Cantor one of the many hero’s of the Tea Party.

Huh? Just4thefax, does this particular bit of information, that you have offered, answer any of the questions I posed? Or are you merely pointing out the fact that Cantor is a “Tea Party” hero, because I said Cantor is a Broken Record? Personally, thank you for that pearl of information. But in all honesty I am more interested in the questions I posed about what type of jobs Cantor is talking about.

The power house economy built in large part by Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding (popularly known as “the Roaring 20s”), began to falter as Woodrow Wilson’s philosophy began to creep back into government (spend, Baby SPEND!). Herbert Hoover attempted to address government’s overspending by increasing revenue through higher taxation–on the “rich,” of course! The industrialists began to guard their money more closely and the shell game that resulted caused a panic on Wall Street and the house of cards came tumbling down.

It took nearly a generation to get this country back on its feet again–”aided” by a world war. For FDR, the steps toward war were an obvious necessity; in 1939, after a decade of spending more revenue than his government took in (whether you want to call it creating “shovel ready projects,” “quantitative easing,” or “sleight of hand”), FDR was staring out at “official figures” of 16% (the real number was something like 21%) and he realized the solution to his dilemma–too many workers and not enough jobs.

FDR knew that he could not “create” more (government) jobs without blowing the lid off the economy so since he could not balance the books with jobs, he decided to decrease the number of workers needing those jobs.

Today, the -0bama regime is straining its collective guts trying to increase revenues–taxation of the so-called “rich” (fueled by inciting class hatred by the “not-so-rich”) is where he wants to go.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

eyemjustsayin said:
Eric Cantor, rich republican from VA, caters to big business, filthy rich, and defends the rich tooth and nail. As

Example of class envy (a.k.a. hatred) I spoke of earlier.

AmericaSucks said:
Santorum said Obama has created 240 million jobs–that’s MUCH more than 500 thousand per month!

He said no such thing! If you look at the BLS statistics you will see there are fewer people employed now than in 2008; that means a net loss in jobs!

If I were to buy you a one-way ticket to another country would you denounce your citizenship and leave and swear to never return?

Carl Emmoth said:
Yo dude,
swede here

Yo dude, your taxes are your problem but maybe I can enlighten you with the following:

Do you have property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, road taxes, inheritence taxes, exise taxes, gasoline taxes, is your food triple taxed?

Here, a farmer grows grain and sells it to the miller; the farmer knows he will have to pay taxes on his income so he covers those taxes by adding a few cents to each bushel of wheat he sells.

The miller sells the flour he makes from the grain to the baker; the miller knows he will have to pay taxes on his income so he covers thoses taxes by adding a few cents to each pound of flour he sells.

The baker buys all the ingredients to bake the flour into loaves of bread; the baker knows he will have to pay taxes on his income so he covers those taxes by adding a few cents to each loaf of bread he sells.

The truck driver agrees to deliver the baker’s bread to the store for a set transport cost; the truck driver knows he will have to pay taxes on his income so he covers those taxes by adding a few cents to each loaf of bread he delivers.

The grocery store owner sells the loaves of bread to the consumer and tries to make a modest profit but he knows he will have to pay taxes on his profits so he adds a few cents to each loaf of bread he markets.

Not counting the taxes covered at the sale of the seeds to the farmer, the loaf of bread has been taxed FIVE times.

If one adds up all the taxes paid in this country, the average earner gives up ~57% of his income in taxes. Who has the better deal? Oh, and when people and nations get in trouble, they sure as hell don’t call Sweden. No offense by that but that’s just the way it is.

X3,

Between you and GONEFISHING, (in another thread) tonight, the both of you have outstanding Posts. His is a bit more “clinical, while yours, real world example.”

Nicely done.

Purveyor

X3

FISHING’s post is near page 3, in the Santelli Thread…. Check it out

Trickle down economics does not work. The reason that we are stuck with these tax rates is because Bush and the Republican congress implemented them for 10 years in 2002. They never caused the middle class to get increased wages, have more jobs or make the economy better. Those who were rich got richer and those who were making ends meet, continued to have them meet. The rich people and corporations destroyed the economy a few years ago with the help of lazy lawmakers with their banking and investing schemes and continue to live the high life. While middle and lower class people lost jobs, now have less wages, and less opportunities to find work because these corporations claim to be “uncertain” about the future of the economy. What is it that they are uncertain about. All laws and politicians have proven that they have Big corp’ back so I don’t understand how the rich are scred to hire.

X-3 says:
FDR knew that he could not “create” more (government) jobs without blowing the lid off the economy so since he could not balance the books with jobs, he decided to decrease the number of workers needing those jobs.

Today, the -0bama regime is straining its collective guts trying to increase revenues–taxation of the so-called “rich” (fueled by inciting class hatred by the “not-so-rich”) is where he wants to go.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Are you saying FDR entered the war for economic reasons rather than to deal with Hitler?
I’d be interested in knowing where your economic theories come from. The great depression caused by the tax rates? Tax rates dropped in the middle of the roaring twenties to 25% and stayed there until 32, several years after black Tuesday.

Not counting the taxes covered at the sale of the seeds to the farmer, the loaf of bread has been taxed FIVE times.

Counting individual income tax of the people involved as taxing the bread seems a little disingenuous to me.

ImNotBlue says:
Well, tell us why you think the government has the right to take more and more money from the rich. Apparently you think they’re an unending source of funds, and the government has the right to just demand more whenever it needs some. To me, that’s stealing.

Constant exaggeration doesn’t help. If you want to argue that the tax system is unfair or unjust that’s fine, but it’s not stealing as long as it’s law. Can we stick to the facts?

X-3 said:
The power house economy built in large part by Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding

You must win a prize for most amazing quote of the year on Mediaite.

Since you started with “Silent Cal”, I am excited to adress the assertion that his leadership resulted in a “power house economy”… Lets start with noted Baltimore author and member of the “lost generation” H.L. Mencken commenting on this captain and steward of production, who upon gaining the presidency slept ten hours each night, tossed in an afternoon nap for good measure and was known for working a four hour workday…

“In what manner he would have performed himself if the holy angels had shoved the Depression forward a couple of years – this we can only guess, and one man’s hazard is as good as another’s. My own is that he would have responded to bad times precisely as he responded to good ones – that is, by pulling down the blinds, stretching his legs upon his desk, and snoozing away the lazy afternoons…. He slept more than any other President, whether by day or by night. Nero fiddled, but Coolidge only snored…. Counting out Harding as a cipher only, Dr. Coolidge was preceded by one World Saver and followed by two more. What enlightened American, having to choose between any of them and another Coolidge, would hesitate for an instant? There were no thrills while he reigned, but neither were there any headaches. He had no ideas, and he was not a nuisance.”- Mencken 1933

His only accomplishments, besides placing Coolidge sized impressions on any soft horizontal feature of the White House, included funneling money to farmers… who were in notable trouble (and soon to play a large role in the coming financial collapse), providing federal support for rural electrification and signing an international pact that had no enforcement mechanism (Kellogg- Briand)

On quickly to Harding… pleasantly capable of selling insurance and running a small town newspaper (he mentioned each member of the town twice a year to ensure brisk sales). A wise party official advised upon his nomination, “Keep Warren at home. If he goes out on tour, somebody’s sure to ask him questions, and Warren’s just the sort of damned fool that will try to answer them.”

Again, Mencken for perspective….

“I rise to pay my small tribute to Dr. Harding. Setting aside a college professor or two and a half dozen dipsomaniacal newspaper reporters, he takes the first place in my Valhalla of literati. That is to say, he writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up to the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.” -Mencken

Harding then went on to promote a series of deeply corrupt men to positions of power and presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in American History (Veterans Affairs and Tea Pot Dome… Anyone?)

But I digress… if the two champions you noted were in fact dopes… then what is at the root of the economic expansion of the 1920′s? (though let us not forget that it was one of the most divided and disenchanting decades of the last century) In short, WWI propaganda techniques had greatly enhanced the world of advertising at the same time that mass production and industrialization lead to a refined and expansive set of consumer opportunities… the rise of the automobile was a key driver of this expansion… the telephone and electrification began to spread… In sum the modern consumer economy emerged from the dust of the first Great War.

I think it fair to say that the health of American Innovation has always been a key marker of our success… Wise and good leaders understand the chalenges, limit political corruption and provide active support economic growth

History should be our guide. The United States led the world’s economies in the 20
century because we led the world in innovation. Today, the competition is keener; the
challenge is tougher; and that is why innovation is more important than ever. It is the
key to good, new jobs for the 21 century. That’s how we will ensure a high quality of
life for this generation and future generations. With these investments, we’re planting
the seeds of progress for our country, and good-paying, private-sector jobs for the
American people.”
-President Barack Obama, August 5, 2009

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/SEPT_20__Innovation_Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf

COSMOS,

Curiously, I am, at least, patialialy in agreement with you! Maybe, even more than “partially”?

You and I, both, perceive a problem: An unpleasant, inequitable distribution of America’s bounty, opportunity and gifts.

(Note: To my fellow Conservatives, please bare with my use of words. I am trying to reconcile a Liberal and Conservative point of view. Just a bit of latitude, please)

You, COSMOS, as well as a plurality if Liberals, approach the (economic) “problem” by way of a moral or emotional, conscientious methodology.

The Conservative mind desires adherence to the Constitution by way of Reason and Logic. (at least with this issue)

The Conservative/Originalist proponents, take a “tough love” approach, that many Liberals construe as indifference to the plight of the “have nots.” To use another Biblical analogy, Matthew 7:7. Loosely translated: “Teach a man to fish, etc… you know the rest.

Without deviating from the immediate subject, let me tell about a Thesis I have been toying with for 20 years:

“Economic Treason”: defined as–ECONOMIC decision(s) or behavior(s), made by an individual or group that have a pronounced negative affect(s) on America and/or the citizenry.

For instance: I assert that creating and operating a business is a very Patriotic activity. However, when the Business, for various motives, moves the Company “off shore,” so to speak, the Business commits “Economic Treason.”

Note: “Economic Treason,” is not meant to be construed as an ‘illegal’ act, (at least not by current standards) rather, is based on ethics and morals. The Philosopher John Stuart Mill urged minimizing the amount of Laws in a Society. Mill argued that Societal and Cultural castigation be the method a Nation uses to rebuke or repudiate an infraction. Ergo, a boycott, or protest , etc.

More Laws, Taxation and more Governmental control will do exactly what it has done. Stifle Business not promote such. (Note: I am not urging a return to Laissez faire, willy nilly Capitalism. Rather proper laws and regulation, fairly applied and adjudicated)

Free enterprise can, at times, appear callous, however, is truly the “Goose that laid the Golden Egg.” Economic Treason adresses the need to teach ourselves, as well as our children to consider their fellow Americans during our interactions.

Over taxation and re-distribution of wealth, is anathema to the Conservative. The beggar, or the un-wed mother is “anathema” to the Liberal. There seems to be a willingness by the Left to alter the Law, at times, to facilitate solving non-existent problems problems. Hence, a kid gets hit with a baseball, then ban baseball!

The Conservative desires that answers to America’s current dilemma(s), lies within our re-adherence to the Governmental treatises, handed to us all those years ago, Simply look to Thomas Jefferson for our solutions.

Purveyor

X-3 said:
FDR knew that he could not “create” more (government) jobs without blowing the lid off the economy so since he could not balance the books with jobs, he decided to decrease the number of workers needing those jobs.

COSMOS,

I found X3′s Posts to be well worth considering. I believe the time period that X3 was referring to in this Post was Pre WWII. FDR’s Presidency ran from 1933 to 1945 and the early years, FDR did not have the ‘luxury’ of War to solve the Nations Economic woes. Ouch!

FDR, spent the first half of his Presidency trying to cajole, wrangle and deceive America to prosperity. I should note, however, that my last sentence was NOT necessarily to disparage the man. FDR had a hell of a mess to deal with, and He tried, very hard to correct. Despite FDR’s inadequacies or mistakes, History has smiled on him.

As for X3′s subsequent Post, again, I don’t see a problem. Rather X3 makes a clever and simple summary of inflation and cost of living. Where it starts and where it goes.

There are many people, not just in Mediate, that think they understand the American Polity and economics. In fact, much of their presumed knowledge is based on propaganda, misinformation, disinformation or laziness. Oh well.

Anyway, I complimented X3 as he has the ability to simplify concepts, this is case in point.

Purveyor

Greg said:
istory should be our guide. The United States led the world’s economies in the 20
century because we led the world in innovation. Today, the competition is keener; the
challenge is tougher; and that is why innovation is more important than ever. It is the
key to good, new jobs for the 21 century. That’s how we will ensure a high quality of
life for this generation and future generations. With these investments, we’re planting
the seeds of progress for our country, and good-paying, private-sector jobs for the
American people.”
-President Barack Obama, August 5, 2009

X3,

Can I offer some advice? GREG’s Post responding to your’s on the preceding pages, is, historically questionable, ad hominem, nothing more. GREG, simply attacks Harding and Coolidge’s, personal peculiarities. Little else.

The WEB-Site he suggests you Google at the bottom of the page, (Also, contains the quote from above) is just another document on how swell and groovy our current President is. I fail to see the relationship between the obvious Obama propaganda and your Posts? Moreover, the antipathy GREG shows you, is not merited by your insightful and readable Posts.

Perhaps he doesn’t like you, because of me? Ouch!

Anyway, as you may have read, GREG is a surreptitious Socialist, at least with me! LOL My advice, I’d walk away and leave him to his misery.

Lastly, ‘The Business of America, is Business” Coolidge said that, or wrote that? After one his naps. LOL

Your Capitalist, running dog, lackey, friend

1st, thanks for your input. Actual intelligent polite exchanges of ideas is why I continue to come to mediaite, even though they are the exception to the rule.

purveyor says:
You, COSMOS, as well as a plurality if Liberals, approach the (economic) “problem” by way of a moral or emotional, conscientious methodology.

The Conservative mind desires adherence to the Constitution by way of Reason and Logic. (at least with this issue)

Certainly there’s emotion involved but don’t think that liberals do not have a practical side. I’d also say that conservatives are just as emotional when it comes to clinging to certain beliefs and principles. I’ve met some liberals who tend to think we have to help people regardless of the details or expense as part of being compassionate but years of observation has taught me that doesn’t work and isn’t all that compassionate. I agree that a certain amount of tough love is a good thing and I think you’d be surprised at how many liberals agree. I prefer a society where there are some social safety nets and we do help each other through hard times, but there is also an equal obligation and motivation to contribute as much as we can to society. Ask not what your country can do for you…etc. IMO, it’s a question of balance. Our society and by extension our laws is living and changing and requires consistent examination and assessment.

For instance: I assert that creating and operating a business is a very Patriotic activity. However, when the Business, for various motives, moves the Company “off shore,” so to speak, the Business commits “Economic Treason.”

I absolutely agree that people who have the courage and will to start a business are making a big contribution. I’ve worked with and for a lot of small business over the years as well as a few major corporations. I get your point here but let me add something I noticed. My sister and Brother in law, worked for Dexter Shoe in Dexter Maine for years. That company really tried hard for years to keep it’s operation there , but eventually cheap competition meant they had to relocate or fold. IMO, part of the issue is the callousness of certain companies in pursuit of profit, but part of it is callousness of the consumer and their failure to connect American made, to American jobs.

Free enterprise can, at times, appear callous, however, is truly the “Goose that laid the Golden Egg.” Economic Treason adresses the need to teach ourselves, as well as our children to consider their fellow Americans during our interactions.

I fully agree. It’s about being aware of how our decisions affect each other, on all levels, from , how much of our profit do we share with our employees in the form of pay scale and bonus, to, do I shop at my local business and pay slightly more, do I make an effort to look for American products?

More Laws, Taxation and more Governmental control will do exactly what it has done. Stifle Business not promote such. (Note: I am not urging a return to Laissez faire, willy nilly Capitalism. Rather proper laws and regulation, fairly applied and adjudicated)
Again I agree. Don’t think that liberals think that more legislation is the answer. It’s finding the right legislation. Right now we’re talking about an economic crisis in which conservatives are ranting about the national deficit. Why can’t we expect those who have more to give a little more in a time of crisis?

Over taxation and re-distribution of wealth, is anathema to the Conservative. The beggar, or the un-wed mother is “anathema” to the Liberal. There seems to be a willingness by the Left to alter the Law, at times, to facilitate solving non-existent problems problems. Hence, a kid gets hit with a baseball, then ban baseball!

Again, it’s balance. We can’t realistically provide for everyone but it is still morally objectionable for so many to be doing so very well while others can’t afford health care etc. In a crisis people need to step up. IMO, the problem is the real wealth and power in concentrated in just a few people who don’t feel a moral obligation.

I’d be interested in some real world examples of that baseball thing you mentioned.

The Conservative desires that answers to America’s current dilemma(s), lies within our re-adherence to the Governmental treatises, handed to us all those years ago, Simply look to Thomas Jefferson for our solutions.

I just don’t see it as realistic. Jefferson couldn’t begin to imagine our society and country as it is now. The brilliance of the Constitution was the checks and balances that have largely been corrupted now by money, and it’s ability to change and adapt as society changes. IMO, the masses still can have the power to effect needed changes but we are kept divided by things much more trivial than the corruption we need to address.
Corruption is rampant in both parties and changing parties in DC won’t solve it.

COSMOS

I am from Colorado and am a big fan of the cartoon “South Park.” One the Boys, “Stan Marsh” is cursed with seeing things as they should be. Hence, in an episode about anti -smoking zealots, Stan, (an 8 year old kid) said regarding people’s free choice to make their own decisions:

“That sounds completely reasonable”

LOL

Anyway, I am not sure how played out tis thread will be, but, I’ll get a response off as soon as I can, here, on this thread. We are playing with a bit more substantive conversation than is usual. So, my response should reflect such.

Purveyor

purveyor says:
I found X3’s Posts to be well worth considering. I believe the time period that X3 was referring to in this Post was Pre WWII. FDR’s Presidency ran from 1933 to 1945 and the early years, FDR did not have the ‘luxury’ of War to solve the Nations Economic woes. Ouch!

FDR, spent the first half of his Presidency trying to cajole, wrangle and deceive America to prosperity. I should note, however, that my last sentence was NOT necessarily to disparage the man. FDR had a hell of a mess to deal with, and He tried, very hard to correct. Despite FDR’s inadequacies or mistakes, History has smiled on him.

You’ll notice that I asked a question looking for clarification and perhaps any evidence to back it up.
I suspect that taxation did not cause the great depression , and, if he meant FDR’s motives for entering the war was to get out of the depression , I am very dubious. Is it more than a pet theory? Until I see any reasonable evidence that’s all it seems to be.

As for X3’s subsequent Post, again, I don’t see a problem. Rather X3 makes a clever and simple summary of inflation and cost of living. Where it starts and where it goes.

I don’t agree. I think it’s intellectually sloppy to consider individual income tax as taxing the the bread 5 times. It’s reasonable to discuss what services we want the government to provide and how to pay for them, but let’s be honest and realistic. Everyone in the chain is a citizen and should be expected to pay taxes, and make a profit. That’s seems just basic.

There are many people, not just in Mediate, that think they understand the American Polity and economics. In fact, much of their presumed knowledge is based on propaganda, misinformation, disinformation or laziness. Oh well.

I completely agree, and I think they are on both sides of the political divide. I freely admit my own ignorance in certain areas. I think it’s healthy to admit what we don’t know and put some effort into learning , exploring new ides rather than just seeking confirmation of the ones we have. Some things are pretty complex and hard to fully grasp. it’s easy to have an opinion, but how much foundation that opinion has is another issue.

CosmosDan said:

You’ll notice that I asked a question looking for clarification and perhaps any evidence to back it up.
I suspect that taxation did not cause the great depression , and, if he meant FDR’s motives for entering the war was to get out of the depression , I am very dubious. Is it more than a pet theory? Until I see any reasonable evidence that’s all it seems to be.

The Great Depression, was almost a Biblical miasma. So much “bad,” mostly man made, came together at one time.

Anyway, point taken, regarding continuation of taxes, so to speak. I can only guess what X3′s intent was, but…

As for myself, there is a Conservative School of thought, the one desirous of Flat Tax, or, Value Added, that resents the constant repetitive taxing of the same Dollar. I see a Flat tax, or Value added as a solution.

X3, Paleo Conservative, GoneFishing, among others are worth reading for diverse reasons

Purveyor

purveyor says:
I am from Colorado and am a big fan of the cartoon “South Park.” One the Boys, “Stan Marsh” is cursed with seeing things as they should be. Hence, in an episode about anti -smoking zealots, Stan, (an 8 year old kid) said regarding people’s free choice to make their own decisions:

I’m not a huge fan although I’ve enjoyed some of their stuff. Maybe the satire is to heavy handed or I’m distracted by the crudeness. I know Jon Stewart says those guys are brilliant and I am a big JS fan so I give his opinion weight. I think I have some episodes on Netflix that I can check out.

purveyor says:
The Great Depression, was almost a Biblical miasma. So much “bad,” mostly man made, came together at one time.

That was my understanding as well.
One thing on FDR and Obama. It may be easy to judge and criticize from a distance what we think ought to be done or have been done. It’s my understanding that the president has somewhat limited effect and control on the economy, even though the public largely perceives him as responsible. I’m not thrilled about the job Obama has done , but I think it’s a sign that the corruption runs so deep that even if he wanted to drastically change things there are forces preventing it, including those within his own party. That said, how can we realistically 2nd guess the steps he has taken and expect things to turn around in less than three years. It would be nice if that had happened but to look at our struggling economy and think it’s a matter of political ideology seems naive at best.

As for myself, there is a Conservative School of thought, the one desirous of Flat Tax, or, Value Added, that resents the constant repetitive taxing of the same Dollar. I see a Flat tax, or Value added as a solution.

I haven’t explored value added tax. I agree that our tax code is a huge mess. I agree with George Will that too many people benefit from all the written in loop holes and tax laws and it will be a long major fight to change that. I don’t think a simple flat tax will work. I see good reasons for a reasonable progressive tax , or perhaps a flat tax with a large enough personal deduction and child deduction to help the poor. I do agree that we need to look at things being taxed several times. For example, inheritance tax. It never seemed fair to me that someone who worked hard and paid income tax , and then wanted to leave something to loved ones should have that money that had already been taxed, be taxed again, and heavily. Later someone explained to me that much of what is inherited is not income that was already taxed but investments that have avoided tax. In that case, I think that kind of inheritance is income.

X3, Paleo Conservative, GoneFishing, among others are worth reading for diverse reasons

I’ve had several discussions with paleoconservative with mixed results. I’m glad to hear the conservative view.I’m firmly convinced we need both to solve problems. I have several good friends who are conservative or libertarian and we have some pretty interesting discussions. It starts from a place of understanding that we all want this country to improve, even if we disagree on the details. There’s no need for resentment or name calling {except in fun} It also comes from a place of really listening with a desire to understand the other persons pov. I find that missing in too many discussions among people. Stereo typing liberals or conservatives doesn’t help. We shouldn’t assume we know what other people think and what their motives are based on our on preconceptions about people. Let’s listen instead.

Greg said:
History should be our guide. The United States led the world’s economies in the 20
century because we led the world in innovation

I agree. That’s why the green jobs thing is important to look at. That is one of the next places innovation will be key. If we ignore it now because of political games then we will fall behind other industrialized nations who are addressing it.

purveyor says: Can I offer some advice? GREG’s Post responding to your’s on the preceding pages, is, historically questionable, ad hominem, nothing more. GREG, simply attacks Harding and Coolidge’s, personal peculiarities. Little else.

Is that all you saw. I think you’re mistaken. Once again, X3 hasn’t really defended his positions with any facts. I’d be glad to look at them. I think there is indeed very limited effect that a president can have on the economy. It’s bound to run in cycles of ups and downs. The government’s role should be to offer something to keep the lows from being too drastic for society, and to encourage innovation and entrepreneurs.

CosmosDan said:
Is that all you saw.

Yes, that is all I saw.

COSMOS
I first became aware of you when you reasonably inserted yourself into GREG’s and my discussion. If fact, I thought you knew him because of your comment that I had somehow misinterpreted GREG’s point. Hence, I took that as an opportunity to disengage. GREG, did not!

I have studied argumentation and debate and I was having fun with GREG as I immediately appraised my foe as full of Left wing nonsense. I was correct, and it annoyed the heck out of him. (Start at the bottom of page 3 and work forward, GREG was reacting, angrily, as I controlled the debate, and I laughed at what I saw as a puerile leftist and personal defense of himself.)

Furthermore, I had just landed in the room, so to speak, and announced my arrival. To use a Chess analogy, I said: White–d4! LOL

Anyway, after your gracious interjection, his refusal to coincidently disengage, should be an indicator of GREG’s credibility. (Note: as a Philosopher, I explore my counterparts philosophy, BEFORE, I debate facts and issues.)

Furthermore, as a Military Historian, I apply strategy and tactics: adapt, improvise, overcome… (Read Machiavelli)

So, X3 made a very simple, summary of how goods are distributed and taxed. He made his point without complication or impression. Conversely, GREG’s subsequent critique was prolixic, as well as comprised of asserting Coolidge was a poor President because he took naps! Huh!

Conclusion: As I uncovered, almost immediately, GREG is a Leftist Ideologue, who likes to keep people off balance by pretending he’s not. Effectively, he’d been caught in a lie. No matter how smart he is.

Your move: LOL

Start with older episodes of South Park. You need to know “quirks” of the various characters.

purveyor says:
I have studied argumentation and debate and I was having fun with GREG as I immediately appraised my foe as full of Left wing nonsense. I was correct, and it annoyed the heck out of him. (Start at the bottom of page 3 and work forward, GREG was reacting, angrily, as I controlled the debate, and I laughed at what I saw as a puerile leftist and personal defense of himself.)
Furthermore, as a Military Historian, I apply strategy and tactics: adapt, improvise, overcome…

Really? Military tactics on a discussion board. To each his own I guess. I’ve noticed different types of discussions on boards like this. There’s the useless snark and insults. {Although I’m not above the occasional zinger m trash talking or sarcasm} There’s the discussion where t does seem to be a matter of a false perception of winner or loser as if it’s a debate team, and then, luckily, there’s the occasional exchange of ideas. For the latter it helps if we make a sincere attempt to understand the point the other person is trying to make. I know it’s frustrating for me when I’m trying to do the latter and someone is looking for some strange perception of debate victory.

So, X3 made a very simple, summary of how goods are distributed and taxed. He made his point without complication or impression. Conversely, GREG’s subsequent critique was prolixic, as well as comprised of asserting Coolidge was a poor President because he took naps! Huh!

Well, X3 made some questionable claims that he hasn’t been back to support. True , Greg was wordy but the point seemed clear and addressed X3′s claims. Rather than the tax code and those particular presidents deserving credit for the economy it was the times of innovation and industrialization.
here it is

mass production and industrialization lead to a refined and expansive set of consumer opportunities… the rise of the automobile was a key driver of this expansion… the telephone and electrification began to spread… In sum the modern consumer economy emerged from the dust of the first Great War.

I think it fair to say that the health of American Innovation has always been a key marker of our success… Wise and good leaders understand the chalenges, limit political corruption and provide active support economic growth

It seems clear, and if you missed it then perhaps you need to listen more carefully and not dismiss the point being made because you’ve made a judgement call about the poster.

Conclusion: As I uncovered, almost immediately, GREG is a Leftist Ideologue, who likes to keep people off balance by pretending he’s not. Effectively, he’d been caught in a lie

I haven’t read enough of Greg’s post to make that kind of assessment. I tend not to use those labels anyway. I judge the content of the post, the ideas expressed, and the general tone. I try to judge the issues separately and in doing that I am regularly lumped in with leftist ideologues on this board, and occasionally as a conservative on HuffPo . It’s unfortunate IMO, that so many react to an opinion by attaching a label to someone and then assuming they know what their position is.

Caught in a lie about what exactly? If there’s a discussion of a particular issue why can’t it be discussed without labels, just two people with different views.

CosmosDan said:
Greg, just wanted to say, I really appreciate how concise and relevant your posts are. Thanks. It’s nice to have a few posters who aren’t knee jerk partisans with talking points and little else.

I think I completely misinterpreted this Post. I thought you were trying to ameliorate the situation. Rather you were paying GREG a compliment.

If you did know that I had GREG on the defensive, (on the ropes, so to speak)? Anyway, I may have misjudged you?

CosmosDan said:
Really? Military tactics on a discussion board. To each his own I guess. I’ve noticed different types of discussions on boards like this. There’s the useless snark and insults. {Although I’m not above the occasional zinger m trash talking or sarcasm} There’s the discussion where t does seem to be a matter of a false perception of winner or loser as if it’s a debate team, and then, luckily, there’s the occasional exchange of ideas. For the latter it helps if we make a sincere attempt to understand the point the other person is trying to make. I know it’s frustrating for me when I’m trying to do the latter and someone is looking for some strange perception of debate victory.

Read Sun-Tzu. Most successful businessmen and leaders have. Combat is combat, whether by military conflict, Business, Lawyering, or simple debate rooms.

“All warfare is based on deception.” (Sun-Tzu) COSMOS, isn’t that an applicable lesson to a negotiation or Ambassadorial conflict?

“Is it better for a Leader to loved or feared.” (Machiavelli.) Certainly that is applicable in an argument on Politics?

“A Good General chooses the field of battle” (Sun-Tzu) Precisely what I did to GREG, I made him play game, not I, his.

Purveyor

CosmosDan said:
I haven’t read enough of Greg’s post to make that kind of assessment. I tend not to use those labels anyway. I judge the content of the post, the ideas expressed, and the general tone. I try to judge the issues separately and in doing that I am regularly lumped in with leftist ideologues on this board, and occasionally as a conservative on HuffPo . It’s unfortunate IMO, that so many react to an opinion by attaching a label to someone and then assuming they know what their position is.”Caught in a lie about what exactly?” If there’s a discussion of a particular issue why can’t it be discussed without labels, just two people with different views.

GREG, evaded. He knew very well that exposing his political proclivities, by omission and failing to answer questions would expose him.

Moreover, On page3, GREG’s response was wrote leftist chatter. That is when I asked him where, or, from who did he get the rhetoric contained within his response? His response, was evasive telling me read a lot since he was a kid. Uh huh. LOL

I pressed on with my cross, that such sounded Leftist? THEN Greg admitted that he does have some Leftist literature, such as: Alinsky, Cloward and Piven etc., in his library. Among all the other books. Uh huh, I suspected as much. Furthermore, based on his responses, I easily concluded that Leftist ideology predominates his current political thought.

Mi Amigo, I “cross examined” Greg to point where any jury would have questioned his honesty and character. You like to talk facts, do itt with someone who tells the truth, who is not evasive.

At that point, I would have turned to the jury and said “no further questions.” Always maintain eye contact with the jury!

I rest my case LOL

purveyor says:
“Is it better for a Leader to loved or feared.” (Machiavelli.) Certainly that is applicable in an argument on Politics?

I don’t see how, unless you’re discussing that specific question. I’d say in an actual debate of a serious or semi serious format , then tactics and strategy can be useful, but on a not very serious web site it seems a little much.

Any sense of debate victory on a board like this is like a self serving illusion.

purveyor says:
Moreover, On page3, GREG’s response was wrote leftist chatter. That is when I asked him where, or, from who did he get the rhetoric contained within his response? His response, was evasive telling me read a lot since he was a kid.

Why is it leftist chatter, or, why isn’t his post on page three substantial enough to warrant a direct response to what he said? His reading list seemed much broader than just what you refer to as leftist sources.

Mi Amigo, I “cross examined” Greg to point where any jury would have questioned his honesty and character. You like to talk facts, do itt with someone who tells the truth, who is not evasive.

I think you;re fooling yourself. Greg made an argument which you avoided answering, and instead chose to question his sources and dismiss the ideas based on your personal bias, rather than any persuasive argument based on facts and logic. I’ll note that X3, whose points you defended , never did offer anything more than assertions without back up.

I see a habit of posters dismissing and never really discussing ideas and relevant facts because of the source or whatever label they apply. It’s a very non productive habit. I see no evidence of Greg being dishonest or evasive . It seems it was you who evaded dealing directly with his initial points. I also find your sense that you controlled the discussion to be overblown.

I’m pretty tired of people being accused of being blind ideologues because of a particular opinion or two, or because they read a certain author. It’s ludicrous and completely unhelpful in any weighing of the issues.