Occupy Wall Street

[Alex]

In theory, yes, but in practice, not necessarily. Take something as dirt simple as:

"enter your income here, multiply it by this percentage, and you owe X in income tax"

Seems unbelievably simple. But then try and describe what income really means.... For those who only make a salary, it might remain simple. But then just start to add on the things that would affect that number:

- if you rent out a home, is the rent you collect income? If so, does it have to be more than the expenses you incur in preparing that home? Management fees you pay?
- Stocks that went up in value, but you only sold a portion of, is both realized gain and unrealized gain income? Neither? Both?
- Interest you made on other investments. Is that income? Is it entirely income? Or not at all? Or does that mean a different rate?

Multiply the answers to questions like that a thousand-fold, and that's the tax code. Simple does not necessarily equal fair. Transparent does not equal simple. Like most things in life, it can't be solved, or even discussed, in a soundbite.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

"there fair share"? You mean over there, or owned by them? In that case, I would use the word "their". I won't knock your high school or elementary school like you did mine.

Thanks for not knocking it. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Originally Posted by Samer

So you can point out examples of either government waste or government investments that didn't pay off. That clearly proves that everyone should pay zero taxes and struggling poor people should be left on the street to die. Excellent argument

Clearly I said there should be no taxes and the struggling poor should be left on the street to die.

Care to point to that post??

If you werent so blinded by your ideology you might be able to understand that its a spending problem not a revenue problem.

Please point to any post where I said there should be no taxes.
Please point to any post where I advocated doing away with assistance for low income people who need a hand up.

Originally Posted by Samer

And no, I will not be donating extra money to the Federal Government, I will pay my fair share. And if I did earn enough to pay more taxes after the expiration of tax cuts for the 'rich' then I will gladly pay more.

Why wont you donate extra?? You clearly think others should throw their hard earned money down the rat hole. Why not put your money where your mouth is??

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

If you werent so blinded by your ideology

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

Yeah this is funny aint it.

Originally Posted by Samer

So you can point out examples of either government waste or government investments that didn't pay off. That clearly proves that everyone should pay zero taxes and struggling poor people should be left on the street to die. Excellent argument

All of the above because I asked these 4 questions.

At what point is the tax rate on the rich high enough to satisfy you?
How does the confiscation of wealth from others make your life better?
Do you really trust the various government agencys to spend the confiscated wealth in a sane matter?

Most importantly

Can we define a dollar amount that makes one wealthy?? How much in yearly income qualifys you as the rich

Think about it.
I questioned the liberal dogma about rasing taxes and offered my opinion on what the problem is.
Now I want to kill people and pay no taxes.

I know theres a reason I only debate with a few here. Now I remember why.

[SephiaSputnik]

Originally Posted by Alex

What's interesting in the taxes debate, is that the right has backed itself into a corner that it can't escape from, without alienating the supporters it has gained by this loopy, but seemingly simple, idea.

Economy going well? Lower taxes. Economy going poorly? Lower taxes. Going to war? Lower taxes. Ending war? Lower taxes. End corruption? Lower taxes. Make things more fair? Lower taxes.

There isn't a single input to the equation, that would allow someone to support raising taxes in any form or fashion, and keep their position in the party. Which is ludicrous on its face. Taxes go up, taxes go down, and there are legitimate reasons for both. Up until very recently, people from the far left to the far right and everywhere in between understood this. Believing that not to be the case is not supporting economic growth, it's supporting cheap political strategy at the expense of actually supporting a growing economy. Unfortunately for the far right, it's not working either economically or politically. It just means that in the meantime, their candidates need to actually be, or pretend to be, more simple than they've ever had to.

I agree with this and I think most American's do as well as most polls have shown. You can't continue to cut taxes as your only way to balance the budget. There needs to be a balance of both cutting taxes and raising taxes.

Repubs always talk about how if you were a regular family and you're overspending, then you cut out the unnecessary things you spend money on. YES we all agree on this. The other way of balancing is more revenue, the equivalent of let's say you get a new job that pays you more. As Alex said though, what is considered a fair amount for raising taxes is always going to be difficult to determine and no one is happy to pay higher taxes.

Cutting spending on stupid things, yes.. we all agree on that, even most of us Lefties. Being considered a Liberal or a Lefty does not mean that we are incapable of sharing values that are thought of as more Republican. There are far more moderates out there than extremists.

No one appreciates the "brinkmanship" that has plagued Congress. Its the result of partisanship largely created by Tea Party activists who think "compromise" is a dirty word and ignore what the rest of American people want. People are frustrated and pissed off and now we have the complete opposite with the Occupy movement. Congratulations Tea Party, you created Occupy Wall Street.

Why did I single you out Almost40? I didn't. My response to Massacremasses:

I addressed it to Almost40 because Samer I think has given up on the thread.

I don't agree with either side arguing in a way that comes off as pompous or demeaning. It just solves absolutely nothing and no one listens anyway. =/

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

In theory, yes, but in practice, not necessarily. Take something as dirt simple as:

"enter your income here, multiply it by this percentage, and you owe X in income tax"

Seems unbelievably simple. But then try and describe what income really means.... For those who only make a salary, it might remain simple. But then just start to add on the things that would affect that number:

- if you rent out a home, is the rent you collect income? If so, does it have to be more than the expenses you incur in preparing that home? Management fees you pay?
- Stocks that went up in value, but you only sold a portion of, is both realized gain and unrealized gain income? Neither? Both?
- Interest you made on other investments. Is that income? Is it entirely income? Or not at all? Or does that mean a different rate?

Multiply the answers to questions like that a thousand-fold, and that's the tax code. Simple does not necessarily equal fair. Transparent does not equal simple. Like most things in life, it can't be solved, or even discussed, in a soundbite.

I really am in no position to argue tax code stuff as my understanding is elementary at best, but it would seem a simple tax/flat tax would be the only solution. You pay taxes on what you purchase. The more money you have, generally the more money you spend therefore the more tax's you would pay. That would seem logical to me.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

I really am in no position to argue tax code stuff as my understanding is elementary at best, but it would seem a simple tax/flat tax would be the only solution. You pay taxes on what you purchase. The more money you have, generally the more money you spend therefore the more tax's you would pay. That would seem logical to me.

If your asking me. I would do away with the whole income tax code.

Im all for a flat tax on all purchases. 3% national sales tax 4% 5%. it would be all good.
We can dream can we lol

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by SephiaSputnik

I agree with this and I think most American's do as well as most polls have shown. You can't continue to cut taxes as your only way to balance the budget. There needs to be a balance of both cutting taxes and raising taxes.

Repubs always talk about how if you were a regular family and you're overspending, then you cut out the unnecessary things you spend money on. YES we all agree on this. The other way of balancing is more revenue, the equivalent of let's say you get a new job that pays you more. As Alex said though, what is considered a fair amount for raising taxes is always going to be difficult to determine and no one is happy to pay higher taxes.

Cutting spending on stupid things, yes.. we all agree on that, even most of us Lefties. Being considered a Liberal or a Lefty does not mean that we are incapable of sharing values that are thought of as more Republican. There are far more moderates out there than extremists.

No one appreciates the "brinkmanship" that has plagued Congress. Its the result of partisanship largely created by Tea Party activists who think "compromise" is a dirty word and ignore what the rest of American people want. People are frustrated and pissed off and now we have the complete opposite with the Occupy movement. Congratulations Tea Party, you created Occupy Wall Street.

One political candidate can bring both sides (if you want to call it that) of OWS and the Tea Party together. This candidate is Ron Paul. Because despite popular belief all the things the OWS crowd wants can be accomplished by a "true" conservative. Someone who actually practices what they preach and believes in the constitution and in what it stands for.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by almost40

If your asking me. I would do away with the whole income tax code.

Im all for a flat tax on all purchases. 3% national sales tax 4% 5%. it would be all good.
We can dream can we lol

not sure on your percentages but yeah it would seem like something like that would be more desirable then what we have now imo.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by SephiaSputnik

I agree with this and I think most American's do as well as most polls have shown.

Um yeah, we dont cite polls here in this thread. Especially when the disagree with your point of view. see post #52 & 53.

[Samer]

Originally Posted by almost40

At what point is the tax rate on the rich high enough to satisfy you?
How does the confiscation of wealth from others make your life better?
Do you really trust the various government agencys to spend the confiscated wealth in a sane matter?

Most importantly

Can we define a dollar amount that makes one wealthy?? How much in yearly income qualifys you as the rich

You act as if I didn't answer your questions, but in fact I did answer them. Now compare to the fact that YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER MY ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. If it seems like I'm screaming, well I'm not really screaming, but I'm imagining that I'm screaming in my head, because YOU STILL DID NOT ANSWER. Pretty please answer my question. And please do not answer with a link. I will not open your link and I'm confident most people will not. You're a free thinker and I'm confident you can come up with an argument yourself.

I'll be super nice and I'll summarize my answers to your questions again. Ready for it???

Bringing taxes back to the rate they were under Clinton for annual income above 1 million dollars is a good start for me. (That is an answer to your question. Are you still reading this???? )

It makes my life better in an indirect way. Not financially as I'm not currently in need of any government assistance. It makes people pay more of their fair share, like under Clinton (not Socialism), and hopefully we can put pressure on the Government to use that money for real long term economic growth programs, like education, which is really the only way to reduce the deficit and debt.

I don't need to trust. If someone in the government isn't doing what I think they should be doing, I will not vote for them and I hope my neighbor does the same.

I gave you a starting point dollar amount: 1 million dollars.

ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE. No more stonewalling, no more excuses.

[SephiaSputnik]

Originally Posted by almost40

Um yeah, we dont cite polls here in this thread. Especially when the disagree with your point of view. see post #52 & 53.

ok no polls :P

Can I mention the 9% approval rate of Congress?

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

One that adequately and fairly funds the necessary and agreed-upon expenses that we expect from our government.

O.K.

What do you think is adequate, fair and necessary?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

You pay taxes on what you purchase. The more money you have, generally the more money you spend therefore the more tax's you would pay. That would seem logical to me.

It might seem logical, but it doesn't really work that way. Simple consumption taxes are highly regressive. The poorer you are, the higher percentage of your income you spend. If you have no money left over, it's pretty clear that almost everything you earn has been spent (and in theory, taxed). As you earn more and the savings rate goes up, you spend less and less compared to your income. Every time the numbers are run, the wealthy would end up paying much, much less than an income tax system, meaning that the burden on the rest would increase significantly. Simple does not always equal fair. There are variations to the consumption tax that try and take this into account. Instead of an additional sales tax, just calculate the difference between gross income and money placed into savings at the end of the year, and the difference is the imputed consumption. That difference can then continue to be taxed at different rates depending on however it is set up.

Some good articles on different consumption-based tax strategies are linked off this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax
There's no reason that something like that couldn't be made to work, but it very quickly gets more complicated than a simple sales tax applied to purchases.

Originally Posted by almost40

If your asking me. I would do away with the whole income tax code.

Im all for a flat tax on all purchases. 3% national sales tax 4% 5%. it would be all good.
We can dream can we lol

Of course we can all dream. But it's also helpful to know the difference between fantasy and reality. And the number would be more like 25% if it were revenue neutral with the existing tax code, which is already not able to meet governmental obligations without running huge deficits.

Originally Posted by kyrider

O.K.

What do you think is adequate, fair and necessary?

I'll know it when I see it. Unending growing deficits point to both a revenue problem and a spending problem. If revenue is at historic low levels, and spending is at historic high levels, we've got issues.

Originally Posted by almost40

I know theres a reason I only debate with a few here.

You haven't been debating with anyone here for a very long time. Once those who were interacting with you realized that you don't answer questions, you don't correct yourself when your arguments are shown to be unequivocally faulty, and you post links to the most biased sources available while questioning everyone else's sources, the debate schtick was up and it was recognized as a rantfest by the deluded.

Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by almost40

At what point is the tax rate on the rich high enough to satisfy you?
How does the confiscation of wealth from others make your life better?
Do you really trust the various government agencys to spend the confiscated wealth in a sane matter?

See, those are questions that aren't intended to spark discussion, or engender debate. They are leading, unanswerable, and pointless to respond to. They are right up there with "When did you stop beating your wife?" I tried to stop interacting with you on the political threads once I realized this, and hoped things would just die out. It didn't. Things got worse.

So in the future instead of ignoring it, given the time, I'll try something different. I'll point out the silly attacks. I'll point to the flaws in your arguments. I'll support others who do the same. I'm under no illusions that either of us will be learning anything. That's clearly not your goal. Or necessarily mine. Mine is a combination if keeping this area entertaining and positive, and allowing those who would like to contribute to feel as if they'd be able to. People leaving in disgust isn't good for this area, or the site as a whole.

[kyrider]

Alex,

What would you do right now in the current U.S. fiscal crisis?

[Alex]

If I were who? An all-knowing omnipotent being with the power to change laws, markets, and consumer behavior? I'd get over the illusion that the free market has ever actually been free, and use the tools available to help it along as has always been done.

If I were Obama? I'd probably do exactly what he's doing right now. Point out the silliness of the opposition party, paint them as the do-nothing mindless who are protecting the greedy, and put them in a political corner they can't see their way out of.

If I were Boehner? I'd think real hard about a party whose goals have gone from improving the lot of its constituents and the country as a whole, to one whose goals are predicated on making the other party fail. It doesn't help the country, and ultimately, doesn't help his own party. Drawing everything to a false time-based crisis isn't helping attract the voters he and his colleagues will need going forward, and it's making it that much easier for the incumbent president to point and laugh.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

If I were who? An all-knowing omnipotent being with the power to change laws, markets, and consumer behavior? I'd get over the illusion that the free market has ever actually been free, and use the tools available to help it along as has always been done.

If I were Obama? I'd probably do exactly what he's doing right now. Point out the silliness of the opposition party, paint them as the do-nothing mindless who are protecting the greedy, and put them in a political corner they can't see their way out of.

If I were Boehner? I'd think real hard about a party whose goals have gone from improving the lot of its constituents and the country as a whole, to one whose goals are predicated on making the other party fail. It doesn't help the country, and ultimately, doesn't help his own party. Drawing everything to a false time-based crisis isn't helping attract the voters he and his colleagues will need going forward, and it's making it that much easier for the incumbent president to point and laugh.

O.K. so if you were President Obama you would not change a thing that he is doing.

Thank you for your answer.

[Alex]

So - what exactly would you have him do right now? He can't even pass a continuation of an existing tax cut without the party who has come to symbolize tax cutting opposing it just because he's for it. The amount of things he can actually choose to do in that environment is pretty constrained when it comes to financially significant legislation. The path to re-election is continuing to make the Repubs vote down broadly popular measures, putting their ideology vs. their own self-preservation vs. helping their own constituents. Oh - and then loudly pointing out those inconsistencies as the election gets nearer...

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

So - what exactly would you have him do right now? He can't even pass a continuation of an existing tax cut without the party who has come to symbolize tax cutting opposing it just because he's for it. The amount of things he can actually choose to do in that environment is pretty constrained when it comes to financially significant legislation. The path to re-election is continuing to make the Repubs vote down broadly popular measures, putting their ideology vs. their own self-preservation vs. helping their own constituents. Oh - and then loudly pointing out those inconsistencies as the election gets nearer...

The fact that you seem to think he has not had any options, any legislation that has passed the house and then been killed by the democratic controlled senate tells me a lot. You are singling out the house as do nothing while ignoring the senate. That actually tells me a lot. I could ask you what your opinion is of the Presidents own Deficit Reduction commission he formed, yet failed to back, but now I can see there would be no use.

[kyrider]

For those who think the "Fair Tax" punishes the poor please check out www.fairtax.org specifically http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ut_faq_answers

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

You haven't been debating with anyone here for a very long time. Once those who were interacting with you realized that you don't answer questions, you don't correct yourself when your arguments are shown to be unequivocally faulty, and you post links to the most biased sources available while questioning everyone else's sources, the debate schtick was up and it was recognized as a rantfest by the deluded.

So my opinion in this whole thread is deluded because I dont happen to agree with your or others point of view?

Alex has sunk to a new low.

And the people who just so happen to think the debate contained in the early part of this thread (between you and I) is not consistent with your above statement. Are they all deluded too??
What if some here feel that the above statemnet describes you??

As you know, as the mod here, I did get more than a few PMs from other members encouraging me to keep up the good fight.

Guess me and my Ilk are just deluded and only the liberal ideology will be allowed to go unchallenged.

Originally Posted by Alex

So in the future instead of ignoring it, given the time, I'll try something different. I'll point out the silly attacks. I'll point to the flaws in your arguments. I'll support others who do the same. I'm under no illusions that either of us will be learning anything. That's clearly not your goal. Or necessarily mine. Mine is a combination if keeping this area entertaining and positive, and allowing those who would like to contribute to feel as if they'd be able to. People leaving in disgust isn't good for this area, or the site as a whole.

So.........if you agree with Alex he will be on your side. And just like the rest of the liberals he will help circle the wagons in your defense. right or wrong if your opinion is in line with the mods your good to go.

Its a sad sad day for ninjette

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Samer

I gave you a starting point dollar amount: 1 million dollars.

ANSWER MY QUESTION PLEASE. No more stonewalling, no more excuses.

I will, but now I have to get ready to pay the man and I felt the need to answer Alex first.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

The fact that you seem to think he has not had any options,

You're selectively misinterpreting. Now that a Jobs bill won't go through, now that something as easy to agree on as a continuation of the payroll tax cut won't go through, what are his best options right now? I answered your question, yet instead of answering mine, you whip out the party line that Senate is now the problem. Good luck with that.

[Apex]

Politics are fun, because everyone always thinks they are right. People are stuck in their "facts", which can be skewed to benefit either side of the argument. I shall eat my popcorn and continue to watch this debate unfold.

I know better than to talk politics with some people. Of course there are things I feel strongly about and regardless of what I show & references I present, a person who doesn't agree with me never will. Then again, it most likely would work in reverse now I think about it. People feel as strongly about politics as they do religion. So I try to never bring up politics. If it comes up, I often change the subject. Things go downhill fast...because not everyone can do a friendly debate. It really is a shame that people these days can get offended rather easily. Boooo!

*political thread lurker mode on!*

[Alex]

Originally Posted by kyrider

For those who think the "Fair Tax" punishes the poor please check out www.fairtax.org specifically http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...ut_faq_answers

So - in this scenario the planned rate is 23%, and there are "prebates" at the lower end of the scale? It will never pass, of course, but those numbers look much more realistic than than the single digits that are sometimes trotted out as a pipe dream.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

So my opinion in this whole thread is deluded because I dont happen to agree with your or others point of view?

It's not whether or not our points of view are congruent. It's just pointing out that the way you are arguing yours isn't working here. It's just gotten old, and it's no longer fun to watch the train wreck from the sidelines.

Originally Posted by almost40

So.........if you agree with Alex he will be on your side. And just like the rest of the liberals he will help circle the wagons in your defense. right or wrong if your opinion is in line with the mods your good to go.

What we're talking about here isn't liberal vs. conservative, it's about being able to articulate a point without resorting to grade school cracks. If you or anyone else can do so, there's never been and will never be an issue. I feel no need to recuse myself of all disagreements here due to mod status. It hasn't helped.

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by Alex

You're selectively misinterpreting. Now that a Jobs bill won't go through, now that something as easy to agree on as a continuation of the payroll tax cut won't go through, what are his best options right now? I answered your question, yet instead of answering mine, you whip out the party line that Senate is now the problem. Good luck with that.

President Obama had both the house and the senate and he squandered it. Never passing a budget. The senate has yet to pass one in how many years?
This is what President Obama wanted and it all boils down to the election next year. I guess President Obama saying he would veto any plan that had the Keystone Pipeline in it is the Republicans fault as well? Him saying he would delay a decision till after the election in 2012. The pipeline would create thousands of jobs yet he is politicizing it.

[Alex]

Stay on topic here, we were talking about what are his best options right now. I disagree with virtually all of your points above, but we can take them one at a time later. I'm not sure that we'll ever agree on your definition of "politicizing" something, as it appears that you are interpreting it to when a politician does something you disagree with. See, I'd think that that tying a piece of legislation to continue a broadly supported temporary tax cut with a completely unrelated project that can be debated separately, is the very essence of politicizing something.

Again. If you were in his shoes, and wanted to win the election a year from now, what would you do?

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Alex

Again. If you were in his shoes, and wanted to win the election a year from now, what would you do?

this is a problem.


When you do things to win an election and not because its the right thing for the country.

[SephiaSputnik]

Originally Posted by kyrider

President Obama had both the house and the senate and he squandered it. Never passing a budget. The senate has yet to pass one in how many years?
This is what President Obama wanted and it all boils down to the election next year. I guess President Obama saying he would veto any plan that had the Keystone Pipeline in it is the Republicans fault as well? Him saying he would delay a decision till after the election in 2012. The pipeline would create thousands of jobs yet he is politicizing it.

Obama has backed away from saying he'd veto the pipeline.

Also the Senate has come up with a bi-partisan bill that was backed by all but 7 Republican senators and even still the House can't even figure out how to support their own party.

Its hard to not blame the House when every single bill going through(and it doesn't matter what it is) has been put down.

The scariest part is that the Republicans have no qualms about being openly against everything even if it goes against their own party's values, bringing down the whole economy all for the sake of electing a Republican into the presidency.

Only problem is though, let's say a Republican does get elected... Democrats are going to do the same thing Republicans have been doing the past 2 years. Nothing is going to change until Congress members get elected out for their inability to get things accomplished, and sometimes that means using that dirty word of "compromise" that they hate so much. In the real world we all have bosses and people we have to work with, we can't throw tantrums and refuse to compromise.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by SephiaSputnik

Only problem is though, let's say a Republican does get elected... Democrats are going to do the same thing Republicans have been doing the past 2 years. Nothing is going to change until Congress members get elected out for their inability to get things accomplished, and sometimes that means using that dirty word of "compromise" that they hate so much. In the real world we all have bosses and people we have to work with, we can't throw tantrums and refuse to compromise.

Im glad youve acknowledged this as well...


They should all be thrown out in my opinion though. Im tired of politicians and bureaucrats. All of them. Most are in it for their own selfish reasons and personal gain. Both "sides" of the isle.

[SephiaSputnik]

Originally Posted by almost40

So my opinion in this whole thread is deluded because I dont happen to agree with your or others point of view?

Alex has sunk to a new low.

And the people who just so happen to think the debate contained in the early part of this thread (between you and I) is not consistent with your above statement. Are they all deluded too??
What if some here feel that the above statemnet describes you??

So.........if you agree with Alex he will be on your side. And just like the rest of the liberals he will help circle the wagons in your defense. right or wrong if your opinion is in line with the mods your good to go.

Its a sad sad day for ninjette

You are just simply childish and if someone doesn't agree with you, out come the asinine remarks.

Alex's statements towards you were ONLY directed towards you because you're the only person who can't refrain from making negative remarks and you are incapable of having a polite discussion.

I don't tell people they can't differ from my opinions, I strongly encourage it and no one anywhere in this thread has said anything about the other party being stupid or blind except for you. You simply have no respect for the other people involved here unless they are on your side. I have yet to see a response from you to a "Liberal" that didn't contain some sort of smartass remark.

I too am done reading your negative bs.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

this is a problem.

When you do things to win an election and not because its the right thing for the country.

Unfortunately that's the nature of politics. You can't govern if you don't win elections. You win those elections by offering better ideas than the other guy, pointing out why the other guy is less suited to the role, or finagling a new method to count hanging chads. If you don't win those elections, everything else about your ability to help the country is null and void anyway.

Originally Posted by massacremasses

They should all be thrown out in my opinion though.

Not an uncommon sentiment, the approval rate for Congress as a whole is about as low as it can go. But when it comes down to the election box and you're deciding between the guy who you affiliate yourself with who you hate, and the guy who you don't affiliate yourself with who you also hate, most people will hate their own side's guy just that little bit less. It's why 9% approval never translates into only 9% of incumbents keeping their seat.

(P.S. "Guy" throughout this post is meant as shorthand for Guy/Gal/Other)

[shiroganeshinobi]

Well I guess Alex couldn't stay out forever. No one can usually stand idly by as the country goes to hell in a hand basket.

This country has complex problems. When we talk about the issues, we can usually strive to reach some sort of agreement. If one side refuses to acknowledge the other, then we get nowhere. Watch the google talk video I posted earlier, it has ideas that hopefully someone other than myself can draw inspiration from.


massacremasses, I know you like Ron Paul cannot unite OWS and the Tea party due to this graphic.



Corporations answer to the government. Think about how monopolies were broken up in the past. It's been three years and why still havent the banks been broken up? If you limit the government's power, then Corporations can answer to no one and can do whatever they want. The problem is government is now controlled by Corporations. We need to make government work for the public again.

The Fair tax is just another agenda pushed by the rich to seem like they're helping everyone else when they're really helping themselves. Just google fair rax drawbacks or unfair or problems. All results point the same conclusion.

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Alex

It's not whether or not our points of view are congruent. It's just pointing out that the way you are arguing yours isn't working here. It's just gotten old, and it's no longer fun to watch the train wreck from the sidelines.

So tax the rich isnt old is it?? Its all GW's fault isnt old?? As it seems to me the way you are arguing yours isn't working here either IMO.
And to follow, obviously my point of view and the way I describe it to others is a trainwreck.
Got it......and its so tired and ineffective that you now feel the need to abandon the pledge you made in post #83.

Originally Posted by Alex

I won't be involved in any political discussions on this site anymore, other than to step in when people are breaking the T.O.S.

And here we are. Just when you thought you were out, I pulled you back In.

Originally Posted by Alex

What we're talking about here isn't liberal vs. conservative, it's about being able to articulate a point without resorting to grade school cracks. If you or anyone else can do so, there's never been and will never be an issue. I feel no need to recuse myself of all disagreements here due to mod status. It hasn't helped.

And thats all great but I got as good as I gave to Samer. No harm, no foul, I deserved it, and didnt complain about it. Your point is?? .........................
what??
My articulation of my points of view is a trainwreck and somehow thats not percieved as.....whats the word im looking for...... asinine.

Nor is it asinine that i want to kill people and pay no taxes.....

Give me a break.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Well I guess Alex couldn't stay out forever. No one can usually stand idly by as the country goes to hell in a hand basket.

This country has complex problems. When we talk about the issues, we can usually strive to reach some sort of agreement. If one side refuses to acknowledge the other, then we get nowhere. Watch the google talk video I posted earlier, it has ideas that hopefully someone other than myself can draw inspiration from.


massacremasses, I know you like Ron Paul cannot unite OWS and the Tea party due to this graphic.



Corporations answer to the government. Think about how monopolies were broken up in the past. It's been three years and why still havent the banks been broken up? If you limit the government's power, then Corporations can answer to no one and can do whatever they want. The problem is government is now controlled by Corporations. We need to make government work for the public again.

The Fair tax is just another agenda pushed by the rich to seem like they're helping everyone else when they're really helping themselves. Just google fair rax drawbacks or unfair or problems. All results point the same conclusion.

I STRONGLY disagree with you. Buy maybe I've misunderstood the OWS movement and if I have I step back from any support of it at all.

The Tea Party wants the Govt. smaller, less taxes etc.

OWS crowd wants the govt. to stop bailing out corporations and to stop lobbyists from controlling where the tax payer money goes (to big corporations) This is the most common theme from what I have seen, all their solutions however is different.

More govt. control is a foolish solution as it actually puts the big corporations into an even larger position of power... but anyways I digress

Ron Paul wants to end big govt. end the lobbying, striking at the very core of the corruption. Govt. and big business in bed together.. Big money DOES NOT want Ron Paul to win because he will end what they have now, which is what the OWS has been protesting about.

If the OWS crowd just wants their bailout to then I guess I have given them to much credit.. and am embarrassed I have semi-defended them and their cause.

The way I see it, and enemy of an enemy is a friend. Ron Paul should be the OWS crowds friend... He is more of a friend than Obama that is for sure. And anyone who thinks otherwise is really uninformed....

[Alex]

Originally Posted by almost40

Got it......and its so tired and ineffective that you now feel the need to abandon the pledge you made in post #83.

There's a difference between persuasive and annoying. I ran out of patience for the latter.

Originally Posted by almost40

And here we are. Just when you thought you were out, I pulled you back In.

Intellectually, I thought it better to bow out as it would keep me from having a negative opinion of others who participated both here in off-topic in the political rants, and also provided good value and content elsewhere on the site. I once placed you in that category. But a quick search on your last 100 posts shows that 88 of them were in the annoying political rant category, so I became less worried about the effect on the site as a whole by confronting your silliness here.

Originally Posted by almost40

Give me a break.

How long would you like?

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

I STRONGLY disagree with you. Buy maybe I've misunderstood the OWS movement and if I have I step back from any support of it at all.

The Tea Party wants the Govt. smaller, less taxes etc.

OWS crowd wants the govt. to stop bailing out corporations and to stop lobbyists from controlling where the tax payer money goes (to big corporations) This is the most common theme from what I have seen, all their solutions however is different.

More govt. control is a foolish solution as it actually puts the big corporations into an even larger position of power... but anyways I digress

Ron Paul wants to end big govt. end the lobbying, striking at the very core of the corruption. Govt. and big business in bed together.. Big money DOES NOT want Ron Paul to win because he will end what they have now, which is what the OWS has been protesting about.

If the OWS crowd just wants their bailout to then I guess I have given them to much credit.. and am embarrassed I have semi-defended them and their cause.

The way I see it, and enemy of an enemy is a friend. Ron Paul should be the OWS crowds friend... He is more of a friend than Obama that is for sure. And anyone who thinks otherwise is really uninformed....

So tell me, when a business/corporation breaks a law, who do they answer to? You? Please.The police? Well who is the police? Government.

Smaller government means less spending right? So less taxes means less funding for government right? How do you expect the government to do its job when it doesnt have the money to do so? I remember reading about why there hasnt been any Wall St prosecutions and they mentioned a number of things. When 9/11 occur, the majority of FBI were transferred to concentrate on national defense. There was very little agents dedicated investigating Wall St. Now if the government had more funding, they could hire more agents to look into the matter. I believe it was William Black who said this in an interview.

Since you are against government spending then the FBI doesnt have the resources to do its job. This is the flaw against small government. Maybe you're referring to efficient government. Well that's what the GAO is for but nobody listens to them except maybe in hindsight. You talk of bigger government but usually that's agencies. Agencies and departments help us despite what your sources may be telling you. Government agencies(power) is granted through elected officials. These officials are the ones swayed by lobby.

OWS likes Ron Paul because he's honest and consistent but the majority of his polices would do too much damage than good. If I were you, I'd research more into Keynesian Economics. Austrian Economics does not have the empirical data to back it up. It sounds nice and makes sense but reality is Keynesian biased.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

So tell me, when a business/corporation breaks a law, who do they answer to? You? Please.The police? Well who is the police? Government.

Smaller government means less spending right? So less taxes means less funding for government right? How do you expect the government to do its job when it doesnt have the money to do so? I remember reading about why there hasnt been any Wall St prosecutions and they mentioned a number of things. When 9/11 occur, the majority of FBI were transferred to concentrate on national defense. There was very little agents dedicated investigating Wall St. Now if the government had more funding, they could hire more agents to look into the matter. I believe it was William Black who said this in an interview.

Since you are against government spending then the FBI doesnt have the resources to do its job. This is the flaw against small government. Maybe you're referring to efficient government. Well that's what the GAO is for but nobody listens to them except maybe in hindsight. You talk of bigger government but usually that's agencies. Agencies and departments help us despite what your sources may be telling you. Government agencies(power) is granted through elected officials. These officials are the ones swayed by lobby.

OWS likes Ron Paul because he's honest and consistent but the majority of his polices would do too much damage than good. If I were you, I'd research more into Keynesian Economics. Austrian Economics does not have the empirical data to back it up. It sounds nice and makes sense but reality is Keynesian biased.

You just mixed up federal and state govt. up you realize that right? FBI obviously federal. Police are a state agency.

I cannot get into a economics argument with you as I dont know enough about economics to get into it deeply.


Bringing back states rights is one of the platforms he is running on, I cant see how thats a bad thing..

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

You just mixed up federal and state govt. up you realize that right? FBI obviously federal. Police are a state agency.

I cannot get into a economics argument with you as I dont know enough about economics to get into it deeply.


Bringing back states rights is one of the platforms he is running on, I cant see how thats a bad thing..

You missed my point. I was talking about the whole smaller government dogma as a whole, this applies on Federal/State/Local. By saying you want a smaller government, you are restricting their power to enforce. Think about highway cops. Smaller budget leads to less officers who then cant catch speeders. This applies on each level as well.

I did clarify a bit of efficiency but that's something that is hard to gauge in real time.