Cain and the greatest 9 words a politician has ever said
12-07-2011, 05:56 PM
#42
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
I don't even know how to respond to this. So I will leave with the words of Herman Cain to at least tie back into the OP.
"I'm not sure what you mean by neoconservative."
"I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement, I'm familiar with the conservative movement. Let me define what I mean by the conservative movement -- less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility."
and I might as well include this again: 80% of all Department of Energy green loans are tied to President Obama’s most prolific donors.
It's being wasted there alright.
"I'm not sure what you mean by neoconservative."
"I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement, I'm familiar with the conservative movement. Let me define what I mean by the conservative movement -- less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility."
and I might as well include this again: 80% of all Department of Energy green loans are tied to President Obama’s most prolific donors.
It's being wasted there alright.
And now the government loans money to private corporations to promote the advancement of science and technology. Where as In the 50 and 60’s we would have directly higherd engeneers and scientists to work on research and development like we did with NASA. I worked with the DOE on several in kind research projects looking at ways to improve transportation efficiencies. Those projects disappeared under GWB.
Our government has moved significantly away from the left and has become significantly less socialist in the things government does even down to the current tax structure.
There is a serious problem with current campaign finance system. And a large chunk of money just follows who is in power regardless of party. The Right wing supreme court we currently have along with the banana republic type wealth distribution we have has made it significantly worse.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 06:14 PM
#43
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Today we have more gov't control over our lives than ever. If the articles of confederation was the least of amount of gov't our nation has ever seen, and now we can't open a used book store in the state of California, how have we moved left?
Thusly, we have a bigger gap in wealth than ever before. Coincidence?
you'd like to see the gap narrow by the rich getting poorer. I'd like to see the gap narrow by both the poor and rich getting richer.
Thusly, we have a bigger gap in wealth than ever before. Coincidence?
you'd like to see the gap narrow by the rich getting poorer. I'd like to see the gap narrow by both the poor and rich getting richer.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 06:21 PM
#44
Lulz @ bbundy thinking that removing 5, 50, or even 500 regulatory laws in the context of millions and millions of lines of regulations and legislation actually constitutes "deregulation."
Nothing has ever been deregulated. The regulations are just adjusted and shifted to benefit whoever happens to be the lobbyist of the moment.
Nothing has ever been deregulated. The regulations are just adjusted and shifted to benefit whoever happens to be the lobbyist of the moment.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 06:30 PM
#45
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
Today we have more gov't control over our lives than ever. If the articles of confederation was the least of amount of gov't our nation has ever seen, and now we can't open a used book store in the state of California, how have we moved left?
Thusly, we have a bigger gap in wealth than ever before. Coincidence?
you'd like to see the gap narrow by the rich getting poorer. I'd like to see the gap narrow by both the poor and rich getting richer.
Thusly, we have a bigger gap in wealth than ever before. Coincidence?
you'd like to see the gap narrow by the rich getting poorer. I'd like to see the gap narrow by both the poor and rich getting richer.
But seriously, the country has moved neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in the past however many years, as per your definition.
It's moved "Corporatist", which is definitely not leftist in nature. Then again, it's also not rightist. Hence my previous statements on this: The country hasn't moved "left" or "right", "conservative" or "liberal". Corporatism, although, is something both sides love to accuse each other of to create political infighting and distract us from what is really going on - not to mention extremists on both sides to cloud the issue.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2011, 06:58 PM
#46
Aww, Brainy, are you putting words in people's mouths? That's cuuuute.
But seriously, the country has moved neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in the past however many years, as per your definition.
It's moved "Corporatist", which is definitely not leftist in nature. Then again, it's also not rightist. Hence my previous statements on this: The country hasn't moved "left" or "right", "conservative" or "liberal". Corporatism, although, is something both sides love to accuse each other of to create political infighting and distract us from what is really going on - not to mention extremists on both sides to cloud the issue.
But seriously, the country has moved neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in the past however many years, as per your definition.
It's moved "Corporatist", which is definitely not leftist in nature. Then again, it's also not rightist. Hence my previous statements on this: The country hasn't moved "left" or "right", "conservative" or "liberal". Corporatism, although, is something both sides love to accuse each other of to create political infighting and distract us from what is really going on - not to mention extremists on both sides to cloud the issue.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 12:54 AM
#48
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
If the constitution was to be the be all end all rule of law why did the founding fathers set up a liberal democratic form of federal government with three branches to pass laws at all?
Bob
Last edited by bbundy; 12-08-2011 at 01:09 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 02:02 AM
#50
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Example: What exactly is it that a hedge fund manager produces that is worth so much? Did he really produce anything or did he just use leveraged capital to re-direct where the wealth went? Should he pay a fraction of the taxes on that income compared to somebody earning a salary for actually producing stuff? Modern day republicans calling themselves conservatives sure think so. Hose the middle productive class lets redistribut the welth up seems to be the mantra.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 02:23 AM
#51
define your terms. I'm using modern, U.S. definintions.
By that standard, a conservative, could not be a fascist because a conservative as I've defined believes in individual rights, freedoms, property rights, limited, small government--fascism requires a strong central gov't that holds economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
If the extreme right is anarchy, and the extreme left Nazism, fascism, Statism, Oligarchy, then the country has by those terms moved from extreme right (revolution), to the left since inception. The Articles of Confederation is a bit left of anarchy, the Constitution is left of the Articles. Our Constitution was drafted to limit our gov'ts powers over us.
The true political right would never tell any individual what they should eat, drink, smoke, or believe, or raise taxes beyond the absolute minimum. They wouldn't move to regulate every industry and capitalistic exchange. They wouldn't tolerate any state-driven racism or genderism or laws about religious expression or laws protecting people from getting their feelings hurt. They wouldn't tolerate virtually anything that a fascist system.
By that standard, a conservative, could not be a fascist because a conservative as I've defined believes in individual rights, freedoms, property rights, limited, small government--fascism requires a strong central gov't that holds economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
If the extreme right is anarchy, and the extreme left Nazism, fascism, Statism, Oligarchy, then the country has by those terms moved from extreme right (revolution), to the left since inception. The Articles of Confederation is a bit left of anarchy, the Constitution is left of the Articles. Our Constitution was drafted to limit our gov'ts powers over us.
The true political right would never tell any individual what they should eat, drink, smoke, or believe, or raise taxes beyond the absolute minimum. They wouldn't move to regulate every industry and capitalistic exchange. They wouldn't tolerate any state-driven racism or genderism or laws about religious expression or laws protecting people from getting their feelings hurt. They wouldn't tolerate virtually anything that a fascist system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 03:16 AM
#52
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,468
Total Cats: 365
Back to the original subject. Exhibit A as to why Herman Cain was a terrible presidential candidate (or a great one, if you're not a Republican) is that he quoted the ******* pokemon movie.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 06:04 AM
#53
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
not sure about left or right, but we certainly do not have the privacy or freedom we used to enjoy. And I am not talking about facebook and phones here, I am talking about the government's ability to monitor/survey your activity and determine what you have to do and how you have to do things. The ron paul snip earlier is a good start.
Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.
Authoritarianism emphasises the rule of the few, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules, which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition;
A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.
Authoritarianism emphasises the rule of the few, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules, which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition;
A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.
Last edited by blaen99; 12-08-2011 at 07:21 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 09:42 AM
#54
Too bad wealth generated by production isn’t necessarily distributed to the productive ones.
Example: What exactly is it that a hedge fund manager produces that is worth so much? Did he really produce anything or did he just use leveraged capital to re-direct where the wealth went? Should he pay a fraction of the taxes on that income compared to somebody earning a salary for actually producing stuff? Modern day republicans calling themselves conservatives sure think so. Hose the middle productive class lets redistribut the welth up seems to be the mantra.
Bob
Example: What exactly is it that a hedge fund manager produces that is worth so much? Did he really produce anything or did he just use leveraged capital to re-direct where the wealth went? Should he pay a fraction of the taxes on that income compared to somebody earning a salary for actually producing stuff? Modern day republicans calling themselves conservatives sure think so. Hose the middle productive class lets redistribut the welth up seems to be the mantra.
Bob
If you are claiming that his income tax is actually a "fraction" of what someone "earning a salary for actually producing stuff" is, I'd need some reference for that, as what you are claiming directly contradicts the progressive marginal income tax system we currently have.
Regarding the idea of who exactly is the "productive one," that's not a moral question, it's an economic one. People like to complain that ballplayers make millions and teachers can barely pay their rent -- but when it comes down to it, nobody is paying for $100 tickets to watch a teacher teach. The market decides how valuable your product or service is. If you have a particularly desired and rare product, service, or skill (like a successful hedge fund manager, or professional ballplayer), the market rewards that handsomely. If you have a relatively common and less desired product, service, or skill (the ability to install a widget on a production line, or explain 2nd-grade math to 2nd-graders), the market will reward that somewhat less handsomely. This is not shocking.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 10:17 AM
#55
I could give two ***** about left and right, but I do care that we set our priorities straight and stop this rampant abuse of the system.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 11:20 AM
#57
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
If by "fraction of the taxes" you mean that capital gains tax is nominally lower because that money was already taxed, then sure, I believe it'd be ridiculous to tax capital gains at higher rates.
If you are claiming that his income tax is actually a "fraction" of what someone "earning a salary for actually producing stuff" is, I'd need some reference for that, as what you are claiming directly contradicts the progressive marginal income tax system we currently have.
Regarding the idea of who exactly is the "productive one," that's not a moral question, it's an economic one. People like to complain that ballplayers make millions and teachers can barely pay their rent -- but when it comes down to it, nobody is paying for $100 tickets to watch a teacher teach. The market decides how valuable your product or service is. If you have a particularly desired and rare product, service, or skill (like a successful hedge fund manager, or professional ballplayer), the market rewards that handsomely. If you have a relatively common and less desired product, service, or skill (the ability to install a widget on a production line, or explain 2nd-grade math to 2nd-graders), the market will reward that somewhat less handsomely. This is not shocking.
If you are claiming that his income tax is actually a "fraction" of what someone "earning a salary for actually producing stuff" is, I'd need some reference for that, as what you are claiming directly contradicts the progressive marginal income tax system we currently have.
Regarding the idea of who exactly is the "productive one," that's not a moral question, it's an economic one. People like to complain that ballplayers make millions and teachers can barely pay their rent -- but when it comes down to it, nobody is paying for $100 tickets to watch a teacher teach. The market decides how valuable your product or service is. If you have a particularly desired and rare product, service, or skill (like a successful hedge fund manager, or professional ballplayer), the market rewards that handsomely. If you have a relatively common and less desired product, service, or skill (the ability to install a widget on a production line, or explain 2nd-grade math to 2nd-graders), the market will reward that somewhat less handsomely. This is not shocking.
And your example of a ballplayer is horrible Ball players huge salaries are taxed as salary and he likely can’t find many deductions. Quite a bit different than a hedge fund manager or anybody making big bucks in the corporate world. Of course the 15.3 % of an employees compensation that goes to fund the federal government on the first ~100k of real income from productivity that drops to 2.9% on income higher in the form of payroll tax before they even start paying income tax is always conveniently ignored by right wingers.
This article I posted previously explains my views nicely.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-rich-20111109
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 12:28 PM
#59
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Perhaps 90% of the financial industry are parasites enabled by the cartel known as the Federal Reserve. The big financial corporations essentially borrow money from the Fed Res at zero interest, and they leverage this to the hilt to make huge profits. In a free market nobody can print unbacked money unrestrainedly and get away with it. Instead in our rigged system the Fed Res' unbacked money is protected by legal tender laws. And then the Fed Res allows very high leverage ratios. In a free market, those who risk high leverage ratios then get wiped out will not be bailed out. In our rigged system, the "too big to fails" get bailed out with more newly-printed money.
The Fed Res has a gov't granted monopoly to print money outside of Congress' control, and they have the power to bail out the big financial corporations. They are a fascist cartel.
The Federal Reserve Act which Congress passed in 1913 was written by 7 representatives of the biggest Wall St. banks. They were competitors but they had a common enemy - the thousands of small banks across the country which were steadily eroding their market share.
The Fed Res Act is an act of regulation - it created the most powerful regulatory agency on the planet. Prior to 1913 there were 2 central banks, both of which were killed by Pres. Andrew Jackson, simply by revoking their gov't protected monopoly status and letting them compete in the free market.
Within this distorted framework, the modicum of a free market drives up the salaries/bonuses of hedge fund managers. Taxing them, or otherwise controlling their incomes, is a silly kludge when the whole system is broken.
Almost half of all economic transactions involve money. If you ignore the masters who control this money, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2011, 12:29 PM
#60
What's funny is that all those things you complain about -- tax loopholes that shift a nominally progressive tax structure into a functionally regressive tax structure -- were made possible by government rule for the purpose of paying favors and benefits to special interest groups and industry lobbyists.
That is NOT free market capitalism. That is corporatism. That is our government, using its unique legal authority, picking winners and losers. That is theft at the hands of government agents.
The answer is NOT more government control.
That is NOT free market capitalism. That is corporatism. That is our government, using its unique legal authority, picking winners and losers. That is theft at the hands of government agents.
The answer is NOT more government control.
Reply
0
0
