| Author | Message | ||
     Cityxslicker |
fat tax, no exemptions. For every 1% above 'healthy' BMI, pay 1000.00 no exemptions It hits obesity, and is the most fair livestock tax the govt could invoke on its cattle. Next, I have a big fat red pen for the budget, agencies, pork barrel projects and favored earmarks..... screw transparency, I want it to bleed red until it is back on budget. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Peace to you, Reindog, but when I read your posts about Atlas Shrugged I can't help but post this cartoon in response. Feel free to give me a painful noogie when next we meet.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Doug, Your stats are all fine and good, but I don't see any solutions in what has transpired since January 2009. "Taxing the rich" only discourages investment. "Redistributive justice" is a train to no where. The reason the middle class is shrinking is that the opportunity for the middle class to grow themselves out of the middle class are being dried up. The middle class is being crowded out of the market. Now if you want to actually change the situation it's not hard: 1) RADICALLY shrink the size of the Federal Government. The more money left in the hands of the people, the greater the opportunity for individuals to create their own businesses and lift themselves out of lower and middle class. 2) Change the way we treat corporations. If you want to stop the tide of offshoring jobs, provide incentives to corporations not to. When you squeeze a corporation, the corporation squeezes back usually in jobs sent to where the labor costs are less. Provide a federal tax offset based upon US labor content. Have 50% of your labor in the US, and receive a 25% reduction in corporate tax rate paid. Have 100% US labor, and receive a 50% corporate tax rate. If the jobs were outsourced for tax reasons, they can be regained through tax reasons. Unfortunately, those seeking "redistributive justice" only want to take by use of force in order to enslave the bottom majority forever. There is no free lunch. | ||
| Reindog |
Kowski, That is a really funny cartoon. Thanks for sharing! Most Conservatives are not anarchists, nor nihilists. We believe in the original intent of the Constitution and limited Federal government. Any power not granted to the Federal government is left to the States. That is why I stated that I favored a taxation system that allows for the building of bombs and highways (two of the legitimate authorities granted by the People to the Federal government). This is the most mobile society in history in that one can go from poor to rich in one generation. I can get an education just by asking for it (I did and that is how I went from a UPS warehouseman to a design engineer with a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering.) If I can do it, then anyone can. Have you read "Atlas Shrugged"? | ||
| Reindog |
"Our work or your guns. You are free to choose either but you can't choose both." | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If Article 1, Section 8 is meaningless and the Federal Government is free to do what those in power dictate, is there anything the Federal Government CAN'T do to you? | ||
| Stirz007 |
Hooter - I can give you a specific example where the Rich did indeed get rich by stealing from the poor. I'm sure there are others. Taylor Family - i.e., Lady Bird Taylor. They owned some land and a small store in east texas years ago. Much of the land around them was the proverbial 40 acres and a mule, owned by among others, post-slavery blacks. The Taylors got rich by giving store credit to these farmers, with repayment due at harvest (cotton, mostly). Most of these folks could neither read nor write, but were required to sign promissory notes with their land as collateral. As the story goes, they were the ONLY store around, so had a lock on the market in the area. Even small debts at the end of harvest resulted in Taylor seizing the property, with the assistance of the local Sheriff. Before long, they were the biggest, richest landowner in that part of the world. Did they steal that land? I guess that depends upon which side of the dispossession you were on. I think many get rich the hard way; they work their butts off, take risks and are rewarded for their efforts. There are others who got rich the easy way: they either inherited it, or figured out a way to skim it off someone else. Total wealth may not be a net sum thing, but most people get their money from someone else - rarely is wealth created without taking (other than counterfeiting - just make as much as you want). | ||
| Hootowl |
Ah, the company store. The rich getting rich through illegal means falls outside of this discussion. They are a very small minority, and eventually pay for their crimes. Well, except the Kennedys. Heck, the beloved Kennedy clan made their money running moonshine, and they ended up running the country. They should give all their money to the government for redistribution. At least the Enron bastard died in jail. The Kennedy's were given the country. We name airports after them. | ||
| Reindog |
I did a quick scan of the "22 reasons". Americans since the 60s have generally overextended themselves by purchasing on credit BY CHOICE, not saving BY CHOICE, buying things that they do not need BY CHOICE. I have watched for decades as people in SoCal drive expensive cars and live in large homes (at least in relationship to me). I often wondered where they got the money to live such an extravagant lifestyle. The answer is that they didn't and now they are paying for it. I chose to buy a much smaller house with a 30 yr fixed mortgage. We threw EVERY available penny at it until we owned our house free and clear after nine years. If I can do it, so can you. You just have to CHOOSE to do it. So save the victimhood for someone else. It ain't selling here. We MUST become fanatically fiscally Conservative if we are to survive as a nation. | ||
| Blake |
The bottom 47% of wage earners pay zero income tax, yet these Socialist morons have their heads crammed so far up their nether orifice that they are able to delude themselves into believing that "tax policies (favori) the wealthy. " EVERYONE should pay some meaningful aportion of income tax. I agree with the idea of a consumption tax. Really good points Tom. As a self employed contractor, investor, and landlord, the tax code has become near impossible. I HATE it! I also HATE that half of our socialist insecurity tax is hidden from employees. Imagine the effect of seeing the full 15% deducted from every paycheck along with FIT. I see it. It infuriates me. I HATE the idea that I am forced under threat of prison to hand over my hard-earned income to the biggest group of crooks, cheats, and liars in the nation, so that they can decide how much to give back to me versus howmuch to give to others. It turns my stomach. I cannot stand the idea of being financially dependent upon a check from the federal goverment, bunch of liars, crooks, and miserable socialist scum. | ||
| Doug_s |
i am not a fan of the govt either. if only it were socialist, it wouldn't be so bad. instead, it's a welfare state for the corporations and the rich. nothing even remotely socialist about it. bank bailouts? bailout of gm and chrysler? (and chrysler back in the 70's?) think there woulda been none of that, if mccain were elected? who are you kidding?  most of it was set in motion by dubyah, before barack even took office... mccain would have done the same thing. barack even kept republicans at the top of the treasury dept and at the top of the fed. i can only imagine the total meltdown, if there had been no bailouts. personally, i would have preferred it, because at least those who caused the mess would feel some of the pain, as well as the rest of us. but don't kid yourselves, unemployment would likely now be at 20-30%, and things would be really bad. only those w/pure political motives are complaining about the present deficits, which dubyah had run up to record highs, before the collapse of the economy. i heard few complaints then... and reindog, do a slower scan of the 22 stats - read it all - don't selectively pick and choose the ones you like...  doug s. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Have you read "Atlas Shrugged"? Yes, many years ago in school. That was in the '80s, so we had interpreted it as a refutation of communism and state appropriation of property and ideas. No argument there. I am surprised to see it resurface as a refutation of contemporary American economic policy which, IMHO, bears precious little resemblance to Marxism/Communism. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
i would have preferred it I would have too. The "bailouts" were nothing more than a thinly veiled nationalization of the banking and auto industry. The only difference between what was done in the bailouts and what was done in Venezuela is that the heads of the corporations who were being taken over were smiling and shaking hands for their "bailout checks". | ||
| Reepicheep |
Most of the Bush "bailouts" I saw (I was watching) were loans that had to be repaid. I still didn't approve of them morally, but from a pragmatic standpoint, they made good sense. You take a business that is reasonably sound but is tanking because nobody will touch the risk, and you remove the risk. Then people will touch it again (as the risk is much reduced) and the company stablizes, and the money nearly always gets paid back, and with a decent profit in interest. After the Democrats got control, the money kept flowing, but it looked to me like it was just given away, not loaned out. You will find there was fall out from these stupid stunts. I think there was a subtle but important shift of power. Before, Republicans had control, and conservatives aligned with them because they sucked the least. Now, I think conservatives are in control, and republicans are trying to claim they are conservatives. Hopefully we are smart about not believing them, but it's hard to fight the media. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Worse yet, they weren't loans they were outright seizure of the assets of the company. Ask GM and Chrysler's bond holders. There is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. Conservatives want to return the Republican to the Republicans. (Article 1, Section 8 and 10th Amendment) | ||
| Reindog |
"Atlas Shrugged" is not about Communism. It is about a society increasingly obsessed with "fairness", punishment of success, justice meted out by cronyism, and the religion of victim hood. Everything the government tries to do makes the situation worse because it is adamantly opposed to free enterprise. These are all timely themes. Check it out. | ||
| Blake |
>>> i am not a fan of the govt either. if only it were socialist, it wouldn't be so bad. instead, it's a welfare state for the corporations and the rich. nothing even remotely socialist about it. 1. Social Security 2. Socialized Health Care (S-Chip, medicare, medicaid, & now Obamacare) 3. Socialized Education (gov't schools & fed gov loans, grants, etc.) 4. Unionized/socialist TSA airport security 5. Socialized farming (crop controls & subsidies) 6. Socialized/nationalized banking, auto mfg., mortgages 7. Socialized wages (minimum wage) 8. Socialized insurance (unemployment ins.) 9. Socialized media (PBS & NPR) 10. Socialized art (NEA) The above just off the top of my head. There are more, lots more examples of our fall into socialism. Now go away. Tom, I like Gingrich and Palin. If Joe Arpao would run, I'd like him too. I like Huckabee. I like Governor Christi of NJ. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I don't trust Huckabee any farther than I can throw him. | ||
| Doug_s |
blake, you are right - it is socialism. but, most of it is socialism for the wealthy and socialism for the corporations. and, what isn't, is the only thing that separates us from third world countries, w/no middle class whatsoever. but, don't worry - we're getting there. personally, i would prefer a socialist european country over one w/no middle class, like china or india. that's why i won't go away. doug s. | ||
| Reindog |
Doug_s: This is the Conservative Clubhouse. Why are you here? Please contribute by discussing which Conservative candidate can most effectively beat the Communist Obama. If not, then you are a troll and are not welcome here. Get yer own thread. | ||
| Reindog |
Sheriff Joe seems to have not inclination to run for a Federal office. He would be great, though. Governor Christi has lots of potential. I love the way he is standing up to the Left in his state. Huckabee is good on Fox and plays an OK guitar. I don't trust him either. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe the next President will be a current or former State Governor. Bob Riley Bobby Jindal Tim Pawlenty Haley Barbour Chris Christie | ||
| Reindog |
Any thoughts of the idea bubbling around that Hillary Clinton will run against Obama for the 2012 presidential nomination? It is so Shakespearean. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If there's blood in the water, I wouldn't doubt the effort. | ||
| Strokizator |
Historically, governors make better presidents (Jimmy Carter notwithstanding). They gain executive management skills that senators and congressmen aren't exposed to. Obama is a skilled campaigner with absolutely no management skills. | ||
| Blake |
>>> in 200 years, when the history of the fall of the american empire is studied, historians will trace it back to the beginning of deregulation, and tax policies favoring the wealthy, started by ronnie reagan, in 1980... Yet more self-deluded propaganda from the willfully blind (corporations are evil, socialism is good) morons. The onset of socialism/progressivism in America starting with Wilson, then getting huge boosts by FDR LBJ, and GWB; then brought to an utterly unbearably crushing weight by BHO is what HONEST historians will credit the ruin of a free America. Thankfully it may not be too late to right the good ships Freedom and Prosperity, America as intended by freedom loving revolutionaries. It takes a real hatred of America to refer to her as an "empire"; only a deeply seated hatred of freedom, personal responsibility, accountability, and states rights could lead one to characterize America as an "empire." The Socialist nations in Europe have all turned hard right in recognition of the peril and suffocating burden that their entitlement societies have created. Greece is insolvent and others are close behind. Unemployment in France with their mandatory 35 hr/wk work week has been in double digit territory fo almost a decade. Socialism begets entitlement, begets oppression and more suffering, not less. What kind of moron demonizes "corporations"?? It's like listening to a four year old explain how it was his invisible friend who scribbled crayon all over the wall. If not for the dire consequences for freedom and prosperity in America, it would truly be comical. One need willfully ignore history and reality while intently avoiding any actual critical thinking, analytical objective consideration in order to believe that more power and control in the hands of the likes of the federal government is a good thing. Find the integrity to honor the request of the thread author or be shown the door. Your choice. I hear ya on Huckabee, but I find him very Reagaesque. I trust him and I thing he's very electable. I'd take Gingrich if he were electable. The man is a major genius and sees Washington clearly as broken and needing major reform, not more bureaucracies. Palin is also Reganesque and I think the left/socialist media would become deranged ultimately helping her chances in a general election, if that is she didn't have McCain's IDIOT campaign crew muzzling her. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"I am surprised to see it resurface as a refutation of contemporary American economic policy which, IMHO, bears precious little resemblance to Marxism/Communism." .... go do some reading on N.E.P. and Soviet Union 1921. Every person that I have talked to that works for a living, makes a product, owns a company, is college educated believes these are the worst of times. My econ prof seems to think we have set the business cycle back to about 1972 for policies and business climate. I think it is more in line with Lenin's New Economic Plan of 21. Theres some nice graphs and charts, none of it full of 'HOPE' | ||
| Doug_s |
83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007. 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings. A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008. Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together. In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one. As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets. The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nations wealth. Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008. In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector. The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying. or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011. This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour. Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years. Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009. The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income. corporations run this country, not the federal govt. go ahead, keep your head in the sand and have fun in your little "clubhouse"... doug s. | ||
| Blake |
I read all those mostly inane many deceptive 22 points. Fodder for the weak-minded and those incapable of critIcal thought. Much of it nothing but class warfare socialist propaganda. The simple truth is that more Americans are getting wealthier--see #21 in your list there genius. It's somehow bad that more folks are becoming wealthy??? What kind of #%£'d up moronic view of the world would find fault with more folks becoming more affluent? Answer: Socialist morons! LOL! The author imagines himself clever. He thinks everyone is an idiot. It's very convenient but incredibly dishonest to use recent recessionary data to try to bolster the bogus notion that our middle class is shrinking as a general trend. It would be just as valid to compare today's statistics to those of the great depression. One need not be concerned with who owns most wealth--the wealthy do, D'UH!!! Class is based on standard of living, not gross assets. The bottom 50% have NEVER owned wealth! What kind of idiot would imagine that the bottom of the barrel in wage earners would control any significant wealth? Answer: Socialist morons. It's so convenient to poo-poo the global economy and Chinese competition. What is your solution? Isolationism? I'm game. Go for it. But don't complain when people can no longer afford computers, cell phones, HDTV's and the like. And don't complain when American businesses, those evil corporations you Socialists love to hate, start going out of business. How many computer would Dell sell if forced to build all in house with ten times the cost/price? Motorola and cell phones? Apple iPhones, iPods, ipads? I recall when cotton blue jeans were a major status symbol of the affluent. Not anymore. Everyone has 'em. When you measure wealth based on affluence, number of vehicles, televisions, cell phones, computers, etc... then neglecting the immediate recessionary effects, Americans have NEVER been wealthier than of late. NEVER. The number of impoverished has declined. Simply look at the statistics for household income adjusted for inflation. No other statistics need apply. I disagree most vehemently that "greed" is good. "Greed" is the excessive desire for material wealth, "excessive" being the key descriptor. Greed is what motivates the ENRONs, Tycos, Global Crossings, Bernie Madoffs, and their ilk. Seeking honest profit is NOT greedy. Greed is evil. Greed is the love of money. Please Jeremy do not fall to the materialist propaganda that "greed is good." Wholesome ambition and profit are good. The love of money (greed) is the root of all evil. Are CEOs earning 300+ times the salary of their average company employee greedy? I'd have to say yes. I don't know how to correct that. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Oh, I'm not. I just find it odd that good union boys and girls who want a better life and more income are somehow virtuous and small business owners who scrimp and save and sacrifice in order to build a business that affords them an upper income are somehow "greedy". "Greed" is a bull shit term used like "racist". It means nothing but a hollow pejorative meant to put people on the defensive. Wealth isn't a zero sum game. Those that have didn't steal it from those who don't have. Those who don't have don't because they haven't the value in the market place. |
