OMIGAWD, The House passed it! We are soooo screwed...
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, August 4, 2011 22:57
VIEWED: 6031
PAGE 3 of 4
Sig,
I'm aware some corporate whores go in under a tea party flag, but while I agree with yiur overall sentiment here, I don't think the tea party are really the biggest spenders in the GOP. Those neocons are still kicking around, some of them just rebranded themselves.
Also, we have these globalist neolib dems.
The thing we all need to bear in mind is who gets the money in "spending."
Medicare? About 90% of it becomes corporate profits. Sure, the poor get healthcare, but they could get that without a lot of spending. The spending is just there to pad corporate coffers.
Soc. Sec? Most fo it goes to millionaires. Overwhelmingly it goes to folks who don't need it. I am related to folks who use their soc. Sec. Check to live in gated communities, as a welfare system, that's fucked up.
Military? We're spending nearly a trillion a year when you count the supplementals and portions of the budget hidden in other areas. Of that, $95 billion goes to soldiers. Where does the rest go? Corporations.
Stimulus? That's just flat out hand outs to corporations.
Interest on the debt? Totally bogus unconstitutional payments of invented money to big international banking corporations that own so many other major international corporations.
How about schools? Yeah, the govt. Funds public education. Last I checked it was about $20 billion of the $3.7 trillion they're spending.
Also, all those tax-happy folks out there, I have to say this:
Where does that tax money go? See spending, above. Anything you do to raise taxes, is handing money to corporations, large very wealthy specific multinational corporations like Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil.
Okay, now where does it come from?
Wage earners.
Has anyone from either party suggested "taxing the rich?"
No, of course not.
Has anyone from the progressive or radical wings proposed doing so?
No, it only looks like they have. They've suggested higher taxes on "high wage earners."
Well, okay, who are "high wage earners?"
Well, they're not you and me, sure. But they are "wage earners."
What does that mean? Well, it means they're providing goods and services, that's where their wages are coming from.
It really doesn't matter who they are or what their salary is, what matters is where the money is coming from: the consumer.
So, consumers are paying the wages of wage earners, what happens if we raise taxes on wage earners? Prices go up.
So, wage taxes increase, and we the people lose money. Spending increases, and they the international corporations get money. govt, spending is the engine by which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
its paid for by the sweat of people who actually work.- WULFIE
Well, then, how about shifting the burden to the CEOs and lawyers with fat bonuses and bulging portfolios? It would be hard to make an argument that they "work" in ANY sense of the word.-SIGNY
WULFIE? Got any comment on that? Or did you just run out of words that were stuffed into your head?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:DT I agree with you: treating capital gains differently than wages is ridiculous. And treating corporate income differently that personal income is also ridiculous. Heck, if they're going to be "persons" let's treat them as such. But you made several fundamental errors.
govt, spending is the engine by which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
(1) You're only focusing on the "taxing" end, not on the "spending" end. If you want to predict what's going to happen, you need to consider everything, not just follow one thread.
(2) You seem to think that government is the only driver of wealth inequity. Do you really think that business isn't THE driving force in that process? After all, if government is flowing money through business, isn't it BUSINESS that's sequestering the wealth to a very small group of people?
(3) We need to focus on creating jobs in the USA, because otherwise much of the money that goes into the hands of the poor goes to China via Walmart.
BY the way, you've just made a perfectly good argument for getting rid of health insurances. That's be more effective than getting rid of Medicare.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
(2) You seem to think that government is the only driver of wealth inequity. Do you really think that business isn't THE driving force in that process? After all, if government is flowing money through business, isn't it BUSINESS that's sequestering the wealth to a very small group of people?
I'd be surprised if he did, I surely don't. I rather like blaming both.
S'why I think we need some kind of new business (either market, economy, or business model) to compete, or new government. At this point I'm almost willing to take either one, though both would be good.
Quote:
(3) We need to focus on creating jobs in the USA, because otherwise much of the money that goes into the hands of the poor goes to China via Walmart.
I agree. In another thread I got into a discussion with Nick about the manufacturing of the US, and while I concede there's some, I think very little of the US economy is invested in tangible real world assets. Or even results, in the case of services.
Quote:
By the way, you've just made a perfectly good argument for getting rid of health insurances. That's be more effective than getting rid of Medicare.
I just cackled. Friggin' insurance companies. If we ever do march on them I'll be there torch in hand.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Dunno about "biggest", but certainly a biggie.
Our biggest problem is all our outsourcing for cheaper productsQuote:
Amen and don't I wish.
We need to focus on creating jobs in the USA, because otherwise much of the money that goes into the hands of the poor goes to China via WalmartQuote:
All very good points, with which I agree.
I think very little of the US economy is invested in tangible real world assets. Or even results, in the case of services.
I daren't get started on insurance companies, or I'd go ballistic..
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
"Rad"?! What is this, 1994?!
And really is ANYONE suprised that this "compromise" sucks? There wasn't really any other alternative outcome to all this.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
Yes, rad. It is not 1994, but 1984, by my calculations.
I, for one, am surprised.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mincing, the 2000 Florida vote was stolen, as was the vote in 6 states in 2004. If you want, I can go into excruciating detail about why I think so, but it would prolly just bore you to tears.
So congrats on voting for Nader. I might have voted for Obama, but now that I know what he's all about I'm not gonna make that mistake again.
The 2000 election was not stolen. It is well established that retired, Florida Jews voted for Buchanan in large numbers because they liked him and he was rad.
The progressive's dilemma hasn't changed since 2000. The modern version is, do you:
1) challenge Obama in the primary and general election, thereby voting your conscience and building for the future...and also increasing the likelihood of a an awful republican presidency, or
2) support Obama in the primary and general election, thereby preventing a republican presidency but electing a democrat who will ignore your progressive politics.
It should be noted that if, say, McCain did half the things that Obama did, stoned progressive types would riot in the streets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Amen Mincing. Unfortunately, as has been true for so many years, I will chose #2, and then bitch and moan about him until we get the next one...who probably won't be any better. Sigh...
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mincing, the 2000 Florida vote was stolen, as was the vote in 6 states in 2004. If you want, I can go into excruciating detail about why I think so, but it would prolly just bore you to tears.
So congrats on voting for Nader. I might have voted for Obama, but now that I know what he's all about I'm not gonna make that mistake again.
The 2000 election was not stolen. It is well established that retired, Florida Jews voted for Buchanan in large numbers because they liked him and he was rad.
The progressive's dilemma hasn't changed since 2000. The modern version is, do you:
1) challenge Obama in the primary and general election, thereby voting your conscience and building for the future...and also increasing the likelihood of a an awful republican presidency, or
2) support Obama in the primary and general election, thereby preventing a republican presidency but electing a democrat who will ignore your progressive politics.
It should be noted that if, say, McCain did half the things that Obama did, stoned progressive types would riot in the streets.
YA left out option #3, maybe the best choice- oppose Obama in the primaries- maybe we can get the Dems to nominate somebody else, somebody better, but then support WHOEVER the Dems nominate in the general election. That's how the system is supposed to work. There's also the possibility that the Repubs will nominate somebody who isn't impossible, isn't a Palin or a Bachmann or a Gingrich. You could vote for them instead of Obama or Whoever. That's also how the system is supposed to work. ON that first Tuesday after the First Monday in November, you may have to vote for the lesser of two evils, not the better of 2 greats.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME