That comment from Obama has to be one of the stupidest things he's ever said in his life...I'd hope he fired the staffer who co-opted that line from the indian princess Liz Warren.
But,today good old Joe Biden topped Obama's line...while speaking to a small crowd in Virginia that was 48% black Joe told them the republicans would "put ya'll back in chains." You cant make shit like that up....gotta love Joe.I would'nt be at all surprized if Biden suddenly developed a serious illness that caused him to drop out of the race....paving the way for Hillary to step in as VP.
oh yea....Biden also told the crowd that with their help the Obama-Biden ticket would carry North Carolina....unfortunately he was speaking in Virginia.
Joe "there to make Palin look like a genius" Biden also called Virginia "North Carolina" as he was standing in it. And the Obama-Biden campaign for all 58 states continues....
Will: He will defend Biden. Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'. Then he said they were all engaged in some sort of genocide and called them Nazis.
Way too many times, he lacks reality or perspective in his frame of reference.
Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'.
Again with the "remembering" of things that never happened. I seriously suggest you seek help immediately dmarks. You may very well need to be on medication or undergoing surgery for a brain tumor.
As for Biden's statement: I wouldn't have used those words, but there is truth in what he says... the Republicans do want all us non-wealthy to be wage slaves.
And, regarding Obama's "you didn't build that" statement: it is one of the smartest things he's ever said. He needs to adopt more of the 99 percent movement's rhetoric. People are sick of our economic system that is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Obama needs to talk (and then do) something about it.
Conservatives like Will disagree because it is in their wealthy-worshipping nature to do so. Nobody ever claimed infrastructure guaranteed that entrepreneurs would be successful, only that they couldn't do it without the infrastructure.
Which means that what Will wrote in his post has got to be one of the stupidest things he's ever written in his life. The Biden statement is pure genius in comparison.
From the LA Times: Obama's campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said the president agreed with Biden's sentiment, and accused the Romney campaign of taking them out of context. She added that Republicans often speak of "unshackling" industries from regulations, and Biden has spoken of "unshackling" the middle class.
"Today's comments were a derivative of those remarks, describing the devastating impact letting Wall Street write its own rules again would have on middle class families", Cutter said in a statement". [End excerpt from LA Times.]
So Biden is referring to the meager regulations that have been passed. The only problem I've got with his statement is that I'd say we still are in chains. We'll only be unshackled after we break up the big financial institutions, impose and enforce much stricter regulations, and impose a financial transaction tax to curb high frequency trading.
"Rational": wd is on hallucinogens again I see.
I've never used illegal drugs or any kind of "hallucinogen". Reality is my only drug. It allows one to see things much clearer than if doped up on Objectivism (for example).
In order to "worship" something you first need to think about it. I don't think about wealthy people ever. You're the one who's obsessed about what other people have, wd.......And Obama said that the successful entrepreneurs couldn't do it alone and pointed to roads and bridges, something that couldn't have even been built without the taxes of the successful entrepreneurs!
Meager regulations. LOL The financial sector is the most regulated sector in the economy, for Christ. And who's going to come up with the stricter regulations, government bureaucrats and politicians? Oh, I cannot wait.
And again with the slave wages. 97% of U.S. workers make above the minimum wage and close to 60% of the people in the bottom quintile move out of it in less than a decade. We're hardly a repressive country.
It would seem with this quote, you are conflating the societies offering of the public commons, and shared infrastructure to businessmen with how well an individual entrepreneur used said commons and infrastructure, in their individual business model.
Will: In order to "worship" something you first need to think about it. I don't think about wealthy people ever. You're the one who's obsessed about what other people have, wd
Well, that is a bald-faced lie. Something you said recently people "despise" me for. You whine and cry about them possibly being overtaxed constantly. And you frequently go on and on about the good wealthy individuals have done for society. You even came up with a list.
Uh, no, wd, you're lying. Show me one instance of me ever saying that the rich pay too much in taxes. IN FACT, I have CONSISTENTLY said that I think that the top tax rates should go back to the Clinton era.......And, yes, I wrote one or two posts about how much people like Mellon, Rockefeller, and Annenberg have done to help society a) by creating jobs and wealth and b) by their staggeringly generous philanthropic worth (comparing it to the idiotic make-work/man-leans-on-his-shovel boondoggles of people like Hoover and FDR). But I clearly don't worship rich people (I think that I know who I worship and don't worship, wd). I sure as hell don't worship people like Bernie Madoff and Michael Milkin (though I guess that this fellow has improved his life - hint, hint). Compare this to you, a person who seems wholly incapable of making a comment that doesn't have a rich versus poor story-line underscoring it. You're obsessed, dude (and, honestly, it's because you're poor, too, huh, wd?).
He is lying... just like when he flat out said that Romney's Bain outsourced more than Immelt... and when the figures were called for, he admitted he made it up.
For someone so obsessed with the wealthy, WD sure know so little about them.
dmarks, you are lying. I never "admitted" I made anything up. This is just another in the long list of things you "remember" that never actually happened.
Will is lying too. I never said he thought taxes shouldn't go back to the Clinton era rates. But this is something he often lies about. Whenever I point to the many posts he's written concerning how very, very worried he is that taxes on the rich might go to high. Or the posts where he says he hates it when the President and Congressional Democrats are "divisive" by calling for the wealthy to pay their fair share.
I don't know where Will gets the balls to say he NEVER thinks about the wealthy when he's worrying about and defending them constantly. It's an unbelievably laughable claim.
Will: But I clearly don't worship rich people. Compare this to you, a person who seems wholly incapable of making a comment that doesn't have a rich versus poor story-line underscoring it.
You clearly do. Also, I talk about this problem because the wealthy stealing all the income is destroying our country. I'm "obsessed" with equality because it is the key to solving all our problems (as proven by the research in the book "The Spirit Level").
Class warfare: It's really being waged and the rich are kicking our asses.
WD said: "dmarks, you are lying. I never "admitted" I made anything up."
You flat-out said that Romney's Bain outsourced more than Immelt. We are STILL waiting for the figures.
"Will is lying too. I never said he thought taxes shouldn't go back to the Clinton era rates."
You just did. You said he thought the rich should be overtaxed. But now you admit that he says the rich are undertaxed.
"Or the posts where he says he hates it when the President and Congressional Democrats are "divisive" by calling for the wealthy to pay their fair share."
One thing Will has never opposed is the wealthy paying their fair share.
"You clearly do. Also, I talk about this problem because the wealthy stealing all the income is destroying our country."
Sorry: complete fail on your part. Earning money lawfully does NOT meet the definition of stealing. I am on much more solid ground when I have likened taxation to stealing: as it does actually meet part of the definition of the word.
"I'm "obsessed" with equality because"
The "equality" you advocate is that of the socailist: an extreme stratification in which the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing.
"it is the key to solving all our problems"
That is what Pol Pot said. Sorry, socialism is a very bad idea.
"Class warfare: It's really being waged and the rich are kicking our asses."
Speak for yourself: I suppose Donald Trump breaks into your mom's crawlspace and aims his boot at your backside. For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all.
Will said: "Will: And talk about out-sourcing, who in the hell has done more of that than this Jeffrey Immelt?
You replied: "Mitt Romney"
I asked: "How many more jobs did Romney outsource compared to Immelt? "
Then you admitted you were BSing it:
WD said: "No. I just threw his name out there as someone who may have outsourced more. I don't think anyone has reported any specific numbers (of outsourced jobs)."
The italic emphasis on the parts in which WD admits he made it up are mine.
dmarks: You just did. You said he thought the rich should be overtaxed.
I never have. Will is clear that he's for the tax rates going back to the Clinton percentages. I've never suggested that he is being dishonest about this.
dmarks: But now you admit that he says the rich are undertaxed.
I don't. Will only reluctantly agrees to raising tax rates by a tiny amount because of the national debt. Will often complains about the rich paying too much of the tax load.
dmarks: The "equality" you advocate is that of the socailist: ...the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing.
It is not. I support Democratic socialism, which does not involve "the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing".
dmarks: That is what Pol Pot said. Sorry, socialism is a very bad idea.
Pol Pot lied to obtain power and didn't deliver on his promises. He betrayed Socialism, which is an economic system designed to benefit the people, not ruling elites.
Democratic Socialism is a very good idea. The plutocracy you advocate (where the wealthy elites control everything and the people nothing) is the very bad idea.
dmarks: Speak for yourself: I suppose Donald Trump breaks into your mom's crawlspace and aims his boot at your backside. For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all.
I did not mean "kicking our asses" literally. But you know this. Your ad hominem response is just an example of your extreme stupidity and delusional arrogance (in that you ALWAYS think you're speaking for "the rest of us").
And you are not speaking for the "rest of us". Many of us (the 99 percent movement, for example) realize the class warfare that the rich are waging on us is the primary source of our economic problems.
dmarks lied: Then you admitted you were BSing [about Mitt Romney outsourcing more].
I did not, and I never will.
dmarks: The italic emphasis on the parts in which WD admits he made it up are mine.
The quote is correct, but I made nothing up. There is no admission in it. You're the one making up an admission from this quote.
I am still trying to figure out what was wrong with Biden's statement. I guess we can say that it was inappropriate because it suggested that blacks used to be slaves.
After a brief examination of history I discovered that many blacks were enslaved. I would say an inordinate portion of this historical discussion was made by blacks themselves. Why would they advertize the fact that they used to be enslaved and then become indignant when someone acknowledges it publicly?
Are the offended on behalf of the Black race, or are they offended on behalf of the GOP that refuses to represent them?
WD said: "I never have. Will is clear that he's for the tax rates going back to the Clinton percentages."
Which is a tax hike. Which means he thinks that at present, the rich are undertaxed. Not overtaxes.
I've never suggested that he is being dishonest about this."
Good. Maybe then you realize that the only dishonesty is your own, in claiming that Will thinks the rich are overtaxed.
"Will only reluctantly agrees to raising tax rates by a tiny amount because of the national debt."
You obviously haven't read his comments. If you had, you would see that Will is enthusiastic about this large tax increase. Not reluctant about a tiny amount.
"Will often complains about the rich paying too much of the tax load."
He never does. Never. But he DOES point out the facts of the tax distribution picture which prove that those who say it is rigged toward the rich are lying. He is not complaining about the rich having too much taxes, but about people like you lying about the actual amounts.
"It is not. I support Democratic socialism, which does not involve "the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing".
In fact, it does. The thing that makes this type of fascist economics (socialism) different from other forms is that the authorities who are controlling and running and ruining peoples' lives are democratically elected.
"Pol Pot lied to obtain power and didn't deliver on his promises."
Which is one more thing that makes him one a pure socialist. After all, central in the selling of socialism is the lie that the "people" will control, not the ruling elites.
"He betrayed Socialism, which is an economic system designed to benefit the people, not ruling elites."
It never is. Socialism takes rights AND property from the people and turns it over to the rulers. Every time. Pol Pot was just a lot more direct about it.
"Democratic Socialism is a very good idea."
Democracy is a good idea. Economic fascism (socialism) is a very bad one.
"The plutocracy you advocate"
I have never advocated plutocracy. but perhaps I can see where you are coming from. I advocated school boards being able to fire bad teachers. You called the school boards "plutocrats". I advocated small business owners paying fair wages. You called them "plutocrats".
So, only if "plutocracy" means a system where school boards can fire teachers who rape children, and strapped small business owners can pay clerks a fair wage are all "plutocrats", do I favor "plutocracy"
"where the wealthy elites control everything and the people nothing) is the very bad idea."
Actually, the above situation is typical socialism.
dmarks: Speak for yourself: I suppose Donald Trump breaks into your mom's crawlspace and aims his boot at your backside. For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all.
I did not mean "kicking our asses" literally. But you know this. Your ad hominem response is just an example of your extreme stupidity and delusional arrogance (in that you ALWAYS think you're speaking for "the rest of us").
And you are not speaking for the "rest of us". Many of us (the 99 percent movement, for example) realize the class warfare that the rich are waging on us is the primary source of our economic problems.
dmarks lied: Then you admitted you were BSing [about Mitt Romney outsourcing more].
I did not, and I never will.
dmarks: The italic emphasis on the parts in which WD admits he made it up are mine.
The quote is correct, but I made nothing up. There is no admission in it. You're the one making up an admission from this quote.
I accurately said: "For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all."
WD said: "I did not mean "kicking our asses" literally."
Literally or figuratively, chances are you are lying even about your own experience.
"But you know this."
I only know what you say. Your poor grasp of English and lack of ability to get your point across is your problem, not mine.
"Your ad hominem response is just an example of your extreme stupidity "
No "ad hominem". I was being accurate. You referred to a situation which is propsterous and unlikely (rich people kicking your ass). So excuse me for directly addressing your statement.
John Myste said: " or are they offended on behalf of the GOP that refuses to represent them? "
The GOP is not racist, and as such represents no "race" any more or any less than the other "Race".
The Democratic Party, in contrast, represents Blacks by offering them special advantage. With affirmative action quotas, goals, preference, the Dems tell Blacks they don't have to try as hard. they can just coast and get ahead not by hard work, but by the color of their skin.
This appeals to the worst in anyone: laziness and expecting a free ride.
It is also quite illegitimate, destructive, and socially responsible to offer one "Race" special advantage over the other.
Sure, the Dems "represent" blacks better than the GOP does, just as Assad represents the Alawites in Syria. In either case, it is not a good thing.
Equal treatment, representing all races equally, is the best.
The GOP is not racist, and as such represents no "race" any more or any less than the other "Race".
I agree that the GOP is not racist. I never intended to imply that they are. They represent the wealthy and privileged first, and these are not generally blacks, though there are exceptions. They are plutocrats, but not racists.
The Democratic Party, in contrast, represents Blacks by offering them special advantage. With affirmative action quotas, goals, preference, the Dems tell Blacks they don't have to try as hard.
You don’t understand affirmative action. Those who benefit from it are the “winners.” It does not give a race success. It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up. As we pushed them, it could be construed that we owe them that. It is ok not to agree with AF policies. I denounce the majority of them. However, you clearly don’t understand them. That is not OK, if you are going to have an opinion about the issue.
They can just coast and get ahead not by hard work, but by the color of their skin.
This is generally false. Again, you don’t understand the AF issue.
This appeals to the worst in anyone: laziness and expecting a free ride.
Your version of it would, were it a real thing.
You spent a whole comment trying to renounce policies I generally reject. It was a wasted effort. I reject with understanding. You reject with bogus rhetoric.
One more thing: I an not saying Affirmative Action was wrong in first place. It was very very right. We made it impossible for blacks to succeed. Thus there was no equal opportunity. An opportunity is only an opportunity there is a chance it can be realized. We caused the problem and it was our responsibility to correct it. In most cases, now blacks can succeed. Affirmative action largely did that.
You need to understand Affirmative Action if you are going to call it bad names, sir.
John Myste said: "The GOP...They represent the wealthy and privileged first"
If this were true, they would not be so popular among the non-rich. And they are very popular among the non-rich.
"You don’t understand affirmative action."
I understand it completely. And I support the part of it that involves outreach and inclusion. I oppose the goals/preferences part, which is the part I am condeming.
"Those who benefit from it are the “winners.”
Yes, and they are given unfair advantage by the playing field being tilted by quota policies.
"It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up."
Since these policies are blindly racist, they boost rich blacks and blacks of means who are already standing tall... as well as those who are "down".
And also, due to the racist nature, the policies ignore whites in poverty.
"As we pushed them, it could be construed that we owe them that."
Speak for yourself. I am not one of those who pushed anyone down.
"However, you clearly don’t understand them. That is not OK, if you are going to have an opinion about the issue."
When I point out that they are racist, I am speaking of facts. my "opinion" in this is that racism is bad.
"This is generally false. Again, you don’t understand the AF issue."
It is generally true. If a policy says that a black person does not have to try as hard, it encourages them to not try as hard. Again, I understand it completely.
"Your version of it would, were it a real thing."
It's real, and it is the rule rather than the exception.
"You spent a whole comment trying to renounce policies I generally reject."
Yet, John, you did a lot to defend them. Even repeatedly saying I was wrong and did not understand, when it is clear I do.
"You reject with bogus rhetoric."
I stick to the facts.
I am not saying Affirmative Action was wrong in first place. It was very very right."
The quota/goals part was never right, never. It is racist (in fact) and unjust (in my opinion).
"We caused the problem and it was our responsibility to correct it."
And the way to correct it is with equal opportunity.
"In most cases, now blacks can succeed. Affirmative action largely did that."
No, not at all. Blacks can succeed because (1) they work hard and (2) discrimination against them is largely removed. In an environment with no AA quotas/etc, and with no discrimination, African-Americans will succeed on their merit.
"You need to understand Affirmative Action if you are going to call it bad names, sir."
Sorry, I detest racism in all its forms. I refuse to accept policies designed to punish and reward people on their skin color.
dmarks: Maybe then you realize that the only dishonesty is your own, in claiming that Will thinks the rich are overtaxed.
I never claimed this.
dmarks: You obviously haven't read his comments. If you had, you would see that Will is enthusiastic about this large tax increase. Not reluctant about a tiny amount.
There is no "large tax increase" being proposed by anyone, only a return to the Clinton era tax rates... and then only for the rich. You're obviously addled and confused because [1] Will can't be "enthusiastic" about something that does not exist and has not been proposed. [2] You're imagining comments by Will that he has never made.
dmarks: He never does [complains about the rich paying too much of the tax load]. Never.
He does. Very frequently.
dmarks: he DOES point out the facts of the tax distribution picture which prove that those who say it is rigged toward the rich are lying. He is not complaining about the rich having too much taxes, but about people like you lying about the actual amounts.
The people who say it is rigged toward the rich are telling the truth. And I've never lied about the amounts.
dmarks: In fact, it does. The thing that makes this type of fascist economics (socialism) different from other forms is that the authorities who are controlling and running and ruining peoples' lives are democratically elected.
There is no such thing as "fascist economics (socialism)". It does not exist.
dmarks: Which is one more thing that makes [Pol Pot] a pure socialist. After all, central in the selling of socialism is the lie that the "people" will control, not the ruling elites.
It makes him not a socialist at all, only a pretender and a fake.
dmarks: It never is. Socialism takes rights AND property from the people and turns it over to the rulers. Every time. Pol Pot was just a lot more direct about it.
This never happens.
dmarks: Democracy is a good idea. Economic fascism (socialism) is a very bad one.
What you describe is an oxymoron that does not exist. It can't be a good idea or a bad idea.
dmarks: I have never advocated plutocracy. But perhaps I can see where you are coming from. I advocated school boards being able to fire bad teachers. You called the school boards "plutocrats". I advocated small business owners paying fair wages. You called them "plutocrats".
You do not see where I am coming from, as I never called school boards or small business owners plutocrats. You're talking about something that never happened. And you do advocate plutocracy: you FIRMLY expressed your support for the wealthy buying our elections by allowing them significantly more free speech rights than everyone else. Remember when you said "everything goes better with Koch"? That was you advocating plutocracy.
dmarks: So, only if "plutocracy" means a system where school boards can fire teachers who rape children, and strapped small business owners can pay clerks a fair wage are all "plutocrats", do I favor "plutocracy".
It doesn't mean that, but your confusion about the meaning of the word "plutocracy" is hardly a surprise, given your tendency to invent new meanings for words that are radically different than their actual meaning.
dmarks: I only know what you say. Your poor grasp of English and lack of ability to get your point across is your problem, not mine.
You are lying. Prior to this comment you correctly identified my use of the "kicking our asses" line as FIGURATIVE. Now you pretend not to understand what I meant? What a dope. You are obviously the one with a poor grasp of English.
WD said: "There is no "large tax increase" being proposed by anyone, only a return to the Clinton era tax rates"
That is a large tax increase, if it results in the revenue that those who propose it want.
"and then only for the rich."
Who will pass the "misery" on to to others by firing people, moving investments out of the country, etc. Because that is exactly what such tax increases cause. But that is another matter...
"[1] Will can't be "enthusiastic" about something that does not exist and has not been proposed."
The idea of a massive tax hike to the Clinton levels DOES exist. You are quite mendacious to assert this.
"You're imagining comments by Will that he has never made."
Actually, he says this a lot.
"He does. Very frequently."
No, he says the rich should pay more.
"The people who say it is rigged toward the rich are telling the truth."
They can't be, because there's no truth to it.
'There is no such thing as "fascist economics (socialism)". It does not exist.'
It exists in every single socialist economy.
"It makes him not a socialist at all, only a pretender and a fake."
So? There's not much sincerity or good intention among socialists.
"This never happens."
It TYPICALLY happens. Socialism (economic fascism) is the proven best way for the rulers to amass the most power.
"What you describe is an oxymoron that does not exist. It can't be a good idea or a bad idea."
Unfortunately, socialism exists. Unfortunately, scores of tens of millions of people have been killed by it.
"as I never called school boards or small business owners plutocrats."
You did, quite forcefully.
"you FIRMLY expressed your support for the wealthy buying our elections by allowing them significantly more free speech rights than everyone else."
You make a false assumption. Or many:
1) Free speech is a human right. It is not "bought".
2) I oppose people buying elections.
3) I support the Constitional rights of everyone, even if they are rich.
"everything goes better with Koch"? That was you advocating plutocracy."
No, I was advocating sound public policy. I reviewed the stands of "Americans For Prosperity", and subscribed and sent them money. Not because the Koch brothers are rich, but because this organization has good ideas.
"It doesn't mean that, but your confusion about the meaning of the word "plutocracy""
It was your confusion, when you called school board members and business owners plutocrats. So that is why we laugh at you.
"is hardly a surprise, given your tendency to invent new meanings for words that are radically different than their actual meaning."
You are lying. Prior to this comment you correctly identified my use of the "kicking our asses" line as FIGURATIVE."
But your line didn't even make sense metaphorically.
dmarks: That is a large tax increase, if it results in the revenue that those who propose it want.
It's a small tax increase, and when Clinton signed it the result was a surplus and sustained economic prosperity.
dmarks: Who will pass the "misery" on to to others by [blah, blah, lies]...
There would be no misery to pass on. The Clinton tax rates resulted in economic prosperity and the creation of millions of jobs.
dmarks: The idea of a massive tax hike to the Clinton levels DOES exist. You are quite mendacious to assert this.
It does not exist. You are quite mendacious to assert that it does.
dmarks: Actually, he says this a lot.
He never has.
dmarks: No, he says the rich should pay more.
Slightly more, but only because of our huge debt. Otherwise he frequently points to the percentage of the income they earn compared to the percentage of the tax load they bear (as if the two percentages have anything to do with one another). And he whines and bellyaches about the president calling for the rich to pay their fair share. He says he "hates" it.
dmarks: They can't be, because there's no truth to [our economic system being rigged].
You not being aware of the facts don't change them. David Cay Johnston details it in his book "Perfectly Legal: The covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the super rich -- and cheat everybody else". This is why Mitt Romney only paid 14 percent while everyone in the middle class pays more.
dmarks: It exists in every single socialist economy.
It exists in none of them, because it isn't a real thing. You made it up. There is no such thing as fascism being the economic aspect of socialism. Assertions like this are the reason why everybody laughs at you behind your back.
dmarks: So? There's not much sincerity or good intention among socialists.
There is. The version of it practiced in Europe has lead to better lives for all. People don't go bankrupt or die due to a lack of health insurance. There isn't much sincerity or good intention among the wealthy elites you worship. They don't care if people die. The only thing of importance to them is further enriching themselves.
dmarks: It TYPICALLY happens. Socialism (economic fascism) is the proven best way for the rulers to amass the most power.
You're talking about something that doesn't exist.
dmarks: Unfortunately, socialism exists. Unfortunately, scores of tens of millions of people have been killed by it.
Socialism exists, but it has nothing to do with fascism. They are opposing ideologies. And the reason many tyrants use socialism to fool the people is because socialism is very popular. People want it so much they allow themselves to be fooled by tyrants who promise it but then don't deliver.
dmarks: You did, quite forcefully [call school boards or small business owners plutocrats].
You're lying about this in a ridiculous attempt to make me look stupid. But you only make yourself look stupid.
dmarks: It exists in every single socialist economy.
It exists in none of them, because it isn't a real thing. You made it up. There is no such thing as fascism being the economic aspect of socialism. Assertions like this are the reason why everybody laughs at you behind your back.
dmarks: So? There's not much sincerity or good intention among socialists.
There is. The version of it practiced in Europe has lead to better lives for all. People don't go bankrupt or die due to a lack of health insurance. There isn't much sincerity or good intention among the wealthy elites you worship. They don't care if people die. The only thing of importance to them is further enriching themselves.
dmarks: It TYPICALLY happens. Socialism (economic fascism) is the proven best way for the rulers to amass the most power.
You're talking about something that doesn't exist.
dmarks: Unfortunately, socialism exists. Unfortunately, scores of tens of millions of people have been killed by it.
Socialism exists, but it has nothing to do with fascism. They are opposing ideologies. And the reason many tyrants use socialism to fool the people is because socialism is very popular. People want it so much they allow themselves to be fooled by tyrants who promise it but then don't deliver.
dmarks: You did, quite forcefully [call school boards or small business owners plutocrats].
You're lying about this in a ridiculous attempt to make me look stupid. But you're only making yourself look stupid.
dmarks: You make a false assumption. Or many: 1) Free speech is a human right. It is not "bought".
They why do you advocate that we should allow it to be bought?
dmarks: I oppose people buying elections.
You support it quite forcefully.
dmarks: I support the Constitutional rights of everyone, even if they are rich.
You support extra Constitutional rights for the rich. You believe they should be able to speak louder than everyone else.
dmarks: No, I was advocating sound public policy. I reviewed the stands of "Americans For Prosperity", and subscribed and sent them money. Not because the Koch brothers are rich, but because this organization has good ideas.
They have very bad ideas. Their ideas involve making the rich even richer by making everyone else poorer.
dmarks: It was your confusion, when you called school board members and business owners plutocrats. So that is why we laugh at you.
You are the one who is confused, as I never did what you claim.
dmarks: You are lying. Prior to this comment you correctly identified my use of the "kicking our asses" line as FIGURATIVE. But your line didn't even make sense metaphorically.
I'm telling the truth. And what I said makes sense; you're just too dumb to understand.
This is what I believe. I think that the top tax rates should go back to 39.6% for everybody making over $300-400,000 a year. If some crazy-assed unsuccessful lunatic out there wants to say that this somehow makes me pro-rich, I cannot control that.......And I have NEVER said that the rich pay too much in taxes. That is an absolute bald-faced lie. I have only countered the idiotic notion that rich people haven't been paying their fair share when the ratio of total income tax to total AGI is presently 2.2:1. Yes, maybe they can pay more but to imply that they are somehow skating is patently false.
John Myste said: "The GOP...They represent the wealthy and privileged first"
If this were true, they would not be so popular among the non-rich. And they are very popular among the non-rich.
Marketing takes money and the rich have it. Your conditional “if this were true,” makes a false assertion.
"It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up." Since these policies are blindly racist, they boost rich blacks and blacks of means who are already standing tall... as well as those who are "down".
Again, this shows you don’t understand Affirmative Action. AF is not intended to help an individual. It is intended to repair the damage done to a race. You keep focuses on which individual gets what. The purpose of AF is not to give person X something. You are focusing on a purpose that does not exist. I will concede that there are others like you, who also did not understand the purpose of AF. However, the Supreme Court, which made it possible, did understand.
And also, due to the racist nature, the policies ignore whites in poverty.
Again, AF has nothing to do with handling “blacks in poverty.” It is a macro idea done to fix the damage done to a race so that those within that race, rich or poor, can have a chance to excel. It ignores whites in poverty and it also ignores cancer and it also ignores global warming.
I will concede that some AF policies are racist, and moreover, that AF itself is racist philosophy. It is a race that was crippled. We are talking about race. AF did its job, so I am not big proponent of most AF policies today. It it divisive and unproductive in many cases. However, it was needed in the past, and America is a much better place because it existed. I don’t mind hearing people agree with me that most AF policies should be retired. My only gripe is when they use arguments that betray a lack of philosophical comprehension to do it.
Sorry, I detest racism in all its forms. I refuse to accept policies designed to punish and reward people on their skin color.
As do I. Luckily, I am unaware of any such policies. AF is not about specific individuals; nor is about rewarding or punishing anyone.
38 comments:
That comment from Obama has to be one of the stupidest things he's ever said in his life...I'd hope he fired the staffer who co-opted that line from the indian princess Liz Warren.
But,today good old Joe Biden topped Obama's line...while speaking to a small crowd in Virginia that was 48% black Joe told them the republicans would "put ya'll back in chains."
You cant make shit like that up....gotta love Joe.I would'nt be at all surprized if Biden suddenly developed a serious illness that caused him to drop out of the race....paving the way for Hillary to step in as VP.
Or maybe Jim Webb.
oh yea....Biden also told the crowd that with their help the Obama-Biden ticket would carry North Carolina....unfortunately he was speaking in Virginia.
Joe "there to make Palin look like a genius" Biden also called Virginia "North Carolina" as he was standing in it. And the Obama-Biden campaign for all 58 states continues....
5:1 that wd defends Biden's statement.
The world according to Dufus...
And what an imaginary world it is.
Will: He will defend Biden. Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'. Then he said they were all engaged in some sort of genocide and called them Nazis.
Way too many times, he lacks reality or perspective in his frame of reference.
Remember, this is the same WD who called school boards that want to fire bad teachers and small business owners who want to pay a fair wage all 'plutocrats'.
Again with the "remembering" of things that never happened. I seriously suggest you seek help immediately dmarks. You may very well need to be on medication or undergoing surgery for a brain tumor.
As for Biden's statement: I wouldn't have used those words, but there is truth in what he says... the Republicans do want all us non-wealthy to be wage slaves.
And, regarding Obama's "you didn't build that" statement: it is one of the smartest things he's ever said. He needs to adopt more of the 99 percent movement's rhetoric. People are sick of our economic system that is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Obama needs to talk (and then do) something about it.
Conservatives like Will disagree because it is in their wealthy-worshipping nature to do so. Nobody ever claimed infrastructure guaranteed that entrepreneurs would be successful, only that they couldn't do it without the infrastructure.
Which means that what Will wrote in his post has got to be one of the stupidest things he's ever written in his life. The Biden statement is pure genius in comparison.
wd is on hallucinogens again I see.
From the LA Times: Obama's campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said the president agreed with Biden's sentiment, and accused the Romney campaign of taking them out of context. She added that Republicans often speak of "unshackling" industries from regulations, and Biden has spoken of "unshackling" the middle class.
"Today's comments were a derivative of those remarks, describing the devastating impact letting Wall Street write its own rules again would have on middle class families", Cutter said in a statement". [End excerpt from LA Times.]
So Biden is referring to the meager regulations that have been passed. The only problem I've got with his statement is that I'd say we still are in chains. We'll only be unshackled after we break up the big financial institutions, impose and enforce much stricter regulations, and impose a financial transaction tax to curb high frequency trading.
"Rational": wd is on hallucinogens again I see.
I've never used illegal drugs or any kind of "hallucinogen". Reality is my only drug. It allows one to see things much clearer than if doped up on Objectivism (for example).
In order to "worship" something you first need to think about it. I don't think about wealthy people ever. You're the one who's obsessed about what other people have, wd.......And Obama said that the successful entrepreneurs couldn't do it alone and pointed to roads and bridges, something that couldn't have even been built without the taxes of the successful entrepreneurs!
Meager regulations. LOL The financial sector is the most regulated sector in the economy, for Christ. And who's going to come up with the stricter regulations, government bureaucrats and politicians? Oh, I cannot wait.
It was WD who called all managers/owners plutocrats, and then he called them Nazis. We all read it.
There's something pretty whacky about someone who goes into a 7/11 and sees Hitler behind the counter, and a school board chock full of Goebbelses.
And yes, Will. The regulations on finance are meagre... if you compare it to what they have in North Korea.
And again with the slave wages. 97% of U.S. workers make above the minimum wage and close to 60% of the people in the bottom quintile move out of it in less than a decade. We're hardly a repressive country.
Of course, I should have known wd, hoped up hopium is your thing.
It would seem with this quote, you are conflating the societies offering of the public commons, and shared infrastructure to businessmen with how well an individual entrepreneur used said commons and infrastructure, in their individual business model.
And I would say that you are very insightful.
Will: In order to "worship" something you first need to think about it. I don't think about wealthy people ever. You're the one who's obsessed about what other people have, wd
Well, that is a bald-faced lie. Something you said recently people "despise" me for. You whine and cry about them possibly being overtaxed constantly. And you frequently go on and on about the good wealthy individuals have done for society. You even came up with a list.
Uh, no, wd, you're lying. Show me one instance of me ever saying that the rich pay too much in taxes. IN FACT, I have CONSISTENTLY said that I think that the top tax rates should go back to the Clinton era.......And, yes, I wrote one or two posts about how much people like Mellon, Rockefeller, and Annenberg have done to help society a) by creating jobs and wealth and b) by their staggeringly generous philanthropic worth (comparing it to the idiotic make-work/man-leans-on-his-shovel boondoggles of people like Hoover and FDR). But I clearly don't worship rich people (I think that I know who I worship and don't worship, wd). I sure as hell don't worship people like Bernie Madoff and Michael Milkin (though I guess that this fellow has improved his life - hint, hint). Compare this to you, a person who seems wholly incapable of making a comment that doesn't have a rich versus poor story-line underscoring it. You're obsessed, dude (and, honestly, it's because you're poor, too, huh, wd?).
He is lying... just like when he flat out said that Romney's Bain outsourced more than Immelt... and when the figures were called for, he admitted he made it up.
For someone so obsessed with the wealthy, WD sure know so little about them.
dmarks, you are lying. I never "admitted" I made anything up. This is just another in the long list of things you "remember" that never actually happened.
Will is lying too. I never said he thought taxes shouldn't go back to the Clinton era rates. But this is something he often lies about. Whenever I point to the many posts he's written concerning how very, very worried he is that taxes on the rich might go to high. Or the posts where he says he hates it when the President and Congressional Democrats are "divisive" by calling for the wealthy to pay their fair share.
I don't know where Will gets the balls to say he NEVER thinks about the wealthy when he's worrying about and defending them constantly. It's an unbelievably laughable claim.
Will: But I clearly don't worship rich people. Compare this to you, a person who seems wholly incapable of making a comment that doesn't have a rich versus poor story-line underscoring it.
You clearly do. Also, I talk about this problem because the wealthy stealing all the income is destroying our country. I'm "obsessed" with equality because it is the key to solving all our problems (as proven by the research in the book "The Spirit Level").
Class warfare: It's really being waged and the rich are kicking our asses.
WD said: "dmarks, you are lying. I never "admitted" I made anything up."
You flat-out said that Romney's Bain outsourced more than Immelt. We are STILL waiting for the figures.
"Will is lying too. I never said he thought taxes shouldn't go back to the Clinton era rates."
You just did. You said he thought the rich should be overtaxed. But now you admit that he says the rich are undertaxed.
"Or the posts where he says he hates it when the President and Congressional Democrats are "divisive" by calling for the wealthy to pay their fair share."
One thing Will has never opposed is the wealthy paying their fair share.
"You clearly do. Also, I talk about this problem because the wealthy stealing all the income is destroying our country."
Sorry: complete fail on your part. Earning money lawfully does NOT meet the definition of stealing. I am on much more solid ground when I have likened taxation to stealing: as it does actually meet part of the definition of the word.
"I'm "obsessed" with equality because"
The "equality" you advocate is that of the socailist: an extreme stratification in which the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing.
"it is the key to solving all our problems"
That is what Pol Pot said. Sorry, socialism is a very bad idea.
"Class warfare: It's really being waged and the rich are kicking our asses."
Speak for yourself: I suppose Donald Trump breaks into your mom's crawlspace and aims his boot at your backside. For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all.
WD said: "dmarks, you are lying. I never "admitted" I made anything up."
Actually it happened in this item
Will said: "Will: And talk about out-sourcing, who in the hell has done more of that than this Jeffrey Immelt?
You replied: "Mitt Romney"
I asked: "How many more jobs did Romney outsource compared to Immelt? "
Then you admitted you were BSing it:
WD said: "No. I just threw his name out there as someone who may have outsourced more. I don't think anyone has reported any specific numbers (of outsourced jobs)."
The italic emphasis on the parts in which WD admits he made it up are mine.
dmarks: You just did. You said he thought the rich should be overtaxed.
I never have. Will is clear that he's for the tax rates going back to the Clinton percentages. I've never suggested that he is being dishonest about this.
dmarks: But now you admit that he says the rich are undertaxed.
I don't. Will only reluctantly agrees to raising tax rates by a tiny amount because of the national debt. Will often complains about the rich paying too much of the tax load.
dmarks: The "equality" you advocate is that of the socailist: ...the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing.
It is not. I support Democratic socialism, which does not involve "the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing".
dmarks: That is what Pol Pot said. Sorry, socialism is a very bad idea.
Pol Pot lied to obtain power and didn't deliver on his promises. He betrayed Socialism, which is an economic system designed to benefit the people, not ruling elites.
Democratic Socialism is a very good idea. The plutocracy you advocate (where the wealthy elites control everything and the people nothing) is the very bad idea.
dmarks: Speak for yourself: I suppose Donald Trump breaks into your mom's crawlspace and aims his boot at your backside. For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all.
I did not mean "kicking our asses" literally. But you know this. Your ad hominem response is just an example of your extreme stupidity and delusional arrogance (in that you ALWAYS think you're speaking for "the rest of us").
And you are not speaking for the "rest of us". Many of us (the 99 percent movement, for example) realize the class warfare that the rich are waging on us is the primary source of our economic problems.
dmarks lied: Then you admitted you were BSing [about Mitt Romney outsourcing more].
I did not, and I never will.
dmarks: The italic emphasis on the parts in which WD admits he made it up are mine.
The quote is correct, but I made nothing up. There is no admission in it. You're the one making up an admission from this quote.
I am still trying to figure out what was wrong with Biden's statement. I guess we can say that it was inappropriate because it suggested that blacks used to be slaves.
After a brief examination of history I discovered that many blacks were enslaved. I would say an inordinate portion of this historical discussion was made by blacks themselves. Why would they advertize the fact that they used to be enslaved and then become indignant when someone acknowledges it publicly?
Are the offended on behalf of the Black race, or are they offended on behalf of the GOP that refuses to represent them?
WD said: "I never have. Will is clear that he's for the tax rates going back to the Clinton percentages."
Which is a tax hike. Which means he thinks that at present, the rich are undertaxed. Not overtaxes.
I've never suggested that he is being dishonest about this."
Good. Maybe then you realize that the only dishonesty is your own, in claiming that Will thinks the rich are overtaxed.
"Will only reluctantly agrees to raising tax rates by a tiny amount because of the national debt."
You obviously haven't read his comments. If you had, you would see that Will is enthusiastic about this large tax increase. Not reluctant about a tiny amount.
"Will often complains about the rich paying too much of the tax load."
He never does. Never. But he DOES point out the facts of the tax distribution picture which prove that those who say it is rigged toward the rich are lying. He is not complaining about the rich having too much taxes, but about people like you lying about the actual amounts.
"It is not. I support Democratic socialism, which does not involve "the ruling elites control everything and the people nothing".
In fact, it does. The thing that makes this type of fascist economics (socialism) different from other forms is that the authorities who are controlling and running and ruining peoples' lives are democratically elected.
"Pol Pot lied to obtain power and didn't deliver on his promises."
Which is one more thing that makes him one a pure socialist. After all, central in the selling of socialism is the lie that the "people" will control, not the ruling elites.
"He betrayed Socialism, which is an economic system designed to benefit the people, not ruling elites."
It never is. Socialism takes rights AND property from the people and turns it over to the rulers. Every time. Pol Pot was just a lot more direct about it.
"Democratic Socialism is a very good idea."
Democracy is a good idea. Economic fascism (socialism) is a very bad one.
"The plutocracy you advocate"
I have never advocated plutocracy. but perhaps I can see where you are coming from. I advocated school boards being able to fire bad teachers. You called the school boards "plutocrats". I advocated small business owners paying fair wages. You called them "plutocrats".
So, only if "plutocracy" means a system where school boards can fire teachers who rape children, and strapped small business owners can pay clerks a fair wage are all "plutocrats", do I favor "plutocracy"
"where the wealthy elites control everything and the people nothing) is the very bad idea."
Actually, the above situation is typical socialism.
dmarks: Speak for yourself: I suppose Donald Trump breaks into your mom's crawlspace and aims his boot at your backside. For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all.
I did not mean "kicking our asses" literally. But you know this. Your ad hominem response is just an example of your extreme stupidity and delusional arrogance (in that you ALWAYS think you're speaking for "the rest of us").
And you are not speaking for the "rest of us". Many of us (the 99 percent movement, for example) realize the class warfare that the rich are waging on us is the primary source of our economic problems.
dmarks lied: Then you admitted you were BSing [about Mitt Romney outsourcing more].
I did not, and I never will.
dmarks: The italic emphasis on the parts in which WD admits he made it up are mine.
The quote is correct, but I made nothing up. There is no admission in it. You're the one making up an admission from this quote.
I accurately said: "For the rest of us, this doesn't happen at all."
WD said: "I did not mean "kicking our asses" literally."
Literally or figuratively, chances are you are lying even about your own experience.
"But you know this."
I only know what you say. Your poor grasp of English and lack of ability to get your point across is your problem, not mine.
"Your ad hominem response is just an example of your extreme stupidity "
No "ad hominem". I was being accurate. You referred to a situation which is propsterous and unlikely (rich people kicking your ass). So excuse me for directly addressing your statement.
John Myste said: " or are they offended on behalf of the GOP that refuses to represent them? "
The GOP is not racist, and as such represents no "race" any more or any less than the other "Race".
The Democratic Party, in contrast, represents Blacks by offering them special advantage. With affirmative action quotas, goals, preference, the Dems tell Blacks they don't have to try as hard. they can just coast and get ahead not by hard work, but by the color of their skin.
This appeals to the worst in anyone: laziness and expecting a free ride.
It is also quite illegitimate, destructive, and socially responsible to offer one "Race" special advantage over the other.
Sure, the Dems "represent" blacks better than the GOP does, just as Assad represents the Alawites in Syria. In either case, it is not a good thing.
Equal treatment, representing all races equally, is the best.
DMarks,
The GOP is not racist, and as such represents no "race" any more or any less than the other "Race".
I agree that the GOP is not racist. I never intended to imply that they are. They represent the wealthy and privileged first, and these are not generally blacks, though there are exceptions. They are plutocrats, but not racists.
The Democratic Party, in contrast, represents Blacks by offering them special advantage. With affirmative action quotas, goals, preference, the Dems tell Blacks they don't have to try as hard.
You don’t understand affirmative action. Those who benefit from it are the “winners.” It does not give a race success. It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up. As we pushed them, it could be construed that we owe them that. It is ok not to agree with AF policies. I denounce the majority of them. However, you clearly don’t understand them. That is not OK, if you are going to have an opinion about the issue.
They can just coast and get ahead not by hard work, but by the color of their skin.
This is generally false. Again, you don’t understand the AF issue.
This appeals to the worst in anyone: laziness and expecting a free ride.
Your version of it would, were it a real thing.
You spent a whole comment trying to renounce policies I generally reject. It was a wasted effort. I reject with understanding. You reject with bogus rhetoric.
DMarks,
One more thing: I an not saying Affirmative Action was wrong in first place. It was very very right. We made it impossible for blacks to succeed. Thus there was no equal opportunity. An opportunity is only an opportunity there is a chance it can be realized. We caused the problem and it was our responsibility to correct it. In most cases, now blacks can succeed. Affirmative action largely did that.
You need to understand Affirmative Action if you are going to call it bad names, sir.
John Myste said: "The GOP...They represent the wealthy and privileged first"
If this were true, they would not be so popular among the non-rich. And they are very popular among the non-rich.
"You don’t understand affirmative action."
I understand it completely. And I support the part of it that involves outreach and inclusion. I oppose the goals/preferences part, which is the part I am condeming.
"Those who benefit from it are the “winners.”
Yes, and they are given unfair advantage by the playing field being tilted by quota policies.
"It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up."
Since these policies are blindly racist, they boost rich blacks and blacks of means who are already standing tall... as well as those who are "down".
And also, due to the racist nature, the policies ignore whites in poverty.
"As we pushed them, it could be construed that we owe them that."
Speak for yourself. I am not one of those who pushed anyone down.
"However, you clearly don’t understand them. That is not OK, if you are going to have an opinion about the issue."
When I point out that they are racist, I am speaking of facts. my "opinion" in this is that racism is bad.
"This is generally false. Again, you don’t understand the AF issue."
It is generally true. If a policy says that a black person does not have to try as hard, it encourages them to not try as hard. Again, I understand it completely.
"Your version of it would, were it a real thing."
It's real, and it is the rule rather than the exception.
"You spent a whole comment trying to renounce policies I generally reject."
Yet, John, you did a lot to defend them. Even repeatedly saying I was wrong and did not understand, when it is clear I do.
"You reject with bogus rhetoric."
I stick to the facts.
I am not saying Affirmative Action was wrong in first place. It was very very right."
The quota/goals part was never right, never. It is racist (in fact) and unjust (in my opinion).
"We caused the problem and it was our responsibility to correct it."
And the way to correct it is with equal opportunity.
"In most cases, now blacks can succeed. Affirmative action largely did that."
No, not at all. Blacks can succeed because (1) they work hard and (2) discrimination against them is largely removed. In an environment with no AA quotas/etc, and with no discrimination, African-Americans will succeed on their merit.
"You need to understand Affirmative Action if you are going to call it bad names, sir."
Sorry, I detest racism in all its forms. I refuse to accept policies designed to punish and reward people on their skin color.
dmarks: Maybe then you realize that the only dishonesty is your own, in claiming that Will thinks the rich are overtaxed.
I never claimed this.
dmarks: You obviously haven't read his comments. If you had, you would see that Will is enthusiastic about this large tax increase. Not reluctant about a tiny amount.
There is no "large tax increase" being proposed by anyone, only a return to the Clinton era tax rates... and then only for the rich. You're obviously addled and confused because [1] Will can't be "enthusiastic" about something that does not exist and has not been proposed. [2] You're imagining comments by Will that he has never made.
dmarks: He never does [complains about the rich paying too much of the tax load]. Never.
He does. Very frequently.
dmarks: he DOES point out the facts of the tax distribution picture which prove that those who say it is rigged toward the rich are lying. He is not complaining about the rich having too much taxes, but about people like you lying about the actual amounts.
The people who say it is rigged toward the rich are telling the truth. And I've never lied about the amounts.
dmarks: In fact, it does. The thing that makes this type of fascist economics (socialism) different from other forms is that the authorities who are controlling and running and ruining peoples' lives are democratically elected.
There is no such thing as "fascist economics (socialism)". It does not exist.
dmarks: Which is one more thing that makes [Pol Pot] a pure socialist. After all, central in the selling of socialism is the lie that the "people" will control, not the ruling elites.
It makes him not a socialist at all, only a pretender and a fake.
dmarks: It never is. Socialism takes rights AND property from the people and turns it over to the rulers. Every time. Pol Pot was just a lot more direct about it.
This never happens.
dmarks: Democracy is a good idea. Economic fascism (socialism) is a very bad one.
What you describe is an oxymoron that does not exist. It can't be a good idea or a bad idea.
dmarks: I have never advocated plutocracy. But perhaps I can see where you are coming from. I advocated school boards being able to fire bad teachers. You called the school boards "plutocrats". I advocated small business owners paying fair wages. You called them "plutocrats".
You do not see where I am coming from, as I never called school boards or small business owners plutocrats. You're talking about something that never happened. And you do advocate plutocracy: you FIRMLY expressed your support for the wealthy buying our elections by allowing them significantly more free speech rights than everyone else. Remember when you said "everything goes better with Koch"? That was you advocating plutocracy.
dmarks: So, only if "plutocracy" means a system where school boards can fire teachers who rape children, and strapped small business owners can pay clerks a fair wage are all "plutocrats", do I favor "plutocracy".
It doesn't mean that, but your confusion about the meaning of the word "plutocracy" is hardly a surprise, given your tendency to invent new meanings for words that are radically different than their actual meaning.
dmarks: I only know what you say. Your poor grasp of English and lack of ability to get your point across is your problem, not mine.
You are lying. Prior to this comment you correctly identified my use of the "kicking our asses" line as FIGURATIVE. Now you pretend not to understand what I meant? What a dope. You are obviously the one with a poor grasp of English.
WD said: "There is no "large tax increase" being proposed by anyone, only a return to the Clinton era tax rates"
That is a large tax increase, if it results in the revenue that those who propose it want.
"and then only for the rich."
Who will pass the "misery" on to to others by firing people, moving investments out of the country, etc. Because that is exactly what such tax increases cause. But that is another matter...
"[1] Will can't be "enthusiastic" about something that does not exist and has not been proposed."
The idea of a massive tax
hike to the Clinton levels DOES exist. You are quite mendacious to assert this.
"You're imagining comments by Will that he has never made."
Actually, he says this a lot.
"He does. Very frequently."
No, he says the rich should pay more.
"The people who say it is rigged toward the rich are telling the truth."
They can't be, because there's no truth to it.
'There is no such thing as "fascist economics (socialism)". It does not exist.'
It exists in every single socialist economy.
"It makes him not a socialist at all, only a pretender and a fake."
So? There's not much sincerity or good intention among socialists.
"This never happens."
It TYPICALLY happens. Socialism (economic fascism) is the proven best way for the rulers to amass the most power.
"What you describe is an oxymoron that does not exist. It can't be a good idea or a bad idea."
Unfortunately, socialism exists. Unfortunately, scores of tens of millions of people have been killed by it.
"as I never called school boards or small business owners plutocrats."
You did, quite forcefully.
"you FIRMLY expressed your support for the wealthy buying our elections by allowing them significantly more free speech rights than everyone else."
You make a false assumption. Or many:
1) Free speech is a human right. It is not "bought".
2) I oppose people buying elections.
3) I support the Constitional rights of everyone, even if they are rich.
"everything goes better with Koch"? That was you advocating plutocracy."
No, I was advocating sound public policy. I reviewed the stands of "Americans For Prosperity", and subscribed and sent them money. Not because the Koch brothers are rich, but because this organization has good ideas.
"It doesn't mean that, but your confusion about the meaning of the word "plutocracy""
It was your confusion, when you called school board members and business owners plutocrats. So that is why we laugh at you.
"is hardly a surprise, given your tendency to invent new meanings for words that are radically different than their actual meaning."
You are lying. Prior to this comment you correctly identified my use of the "kicking our asses" line as FIGURATIVE."
But your line didn't even make sense metaphorically.
dmarks: That is a large tax increase, if it results in the revenue that those who propose it want.
It's a small tax increase, and when Clinton signed it the result was a surplus and sustained economic prosperity.
dmarks: Who will pass the "misery" on to to others by [blah, blah, lies]...
There would be no misery to pass on. The Clinton tax rates resulted in economic prosperity and the creation of millions of jobs.
dmarks: The idea of a massive tax hike to the Clinton levels DOES exist. You are quite mendacious to assert this.
It does not exist. You are quite mendacious to assert that it does.
dmarks: Actually, he says this a lot.
He never has.
dmarks: No, he says the rich should pay more.
Slightly more, but only because of our huge debt. Otherwise he frequently points to the percentage of the income they earn compared to the percentage of the tax load they bear (as if the two percentages have anything to do with one another). And he whines and bellyaches about the president calling for the rich to pay their fair share. He says he "hates" it.
dmarks: They can't be, because there's no truth to [our economic system being rigged].
You not being aware of the facts don't change them. David Cay Johnston details it in his book "Perfectly Legal: The covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the super rich -- and cheat everybody else". This is why Mitt Romney only paid 14 percent while everyone in the middle class pays more.
dmarks: It exists in every single socialist economy.
It exists in none of them, because it isn't a real thing. You made it up. There is no such thing as fascism being the economic aspect of socialism. Assertions like this are the reason why everybody laughs at you behind your back.
dmarks: So? There's not much sincerity or good intention among socialists.
There is. The version of it practiced in Europe has lead to better lives for all. People don't go bankrupt or die due to a lack of health insurance. There isn't much sincerity or good intention among the wealthy elites you worship. They don't care if people die. The only thing of importance to them is further enriching themselves.
dmarks: It TYPICALLY happens. Socialism (economic fascism) is the proven best way for the rulers to amass the most power.
You're talking about something that doesn't exist.
dmarks: Unfortunately, socialism exists. Unfortunately, scores of tens of millions of people have been killed by it.
Socialism exists, but it has nothing to do with fascism. They are opposing ideologies. And the reason many tyrants use socialism to fool the people is because socialism is very popular. People want it so much they allow themselves to be fooled by tyrants who promise it but then don't deliver.
dmarks: You did, quite forcefully [call school boards or small business owners plutocrats].
You're lying about this in a ridiculous attempt to make me look stupid. But you only make yourself look stupid.
dmarks: It exists in every single socialist economy.
It exists in none of them, because it isn't a real thing. You made it up. There is no such thing as fascism being the economic aspect of socialism. Assertions like this are the reason why everybody laughs at you behind your back.
dmarks: So? There's not much sincerity or good intention among socialists.
There is. The version of it practiced in Europe has lead to better lives for all. People don't go bankrupt or die due to a lack of health insurance. There isn't much sincerity or good intention among the wealthy elites you worship. They don't care if people die. The only thing of importance to them is further enriching themselves.
dmarks: It TYPICALLY happens. Socialism (economic fascism) is the proven best way for the rulers to amass the most power.
You're talking about something that doesn't exist.
dmarks: Unfortunately, socialism exists. Unfortunately, scores of tens of millions of people have been killed by it.
Socialism exists, but it has nothing to do with fascism. They are opposing ideologies. And the reason many tyrants use socialism to fool the people is because socialism is very popular. People want it so much they allow themselves to be fooled by tyrants who promise it but then don't deliver.
dmarks: You did, quite forcefully [call school boards or small business owners plutocrats].
You're lying about this in a ridiculous attempt to make me look stupid. But you're only making yourself look stupid.
dmarks: You make a false assumption. Or many: 1) Free speech is a human right. It is not "bought".
They why do you advocate that we should allow it to be bought?
dmarks: I oppose people buying elections.
You support it quite forcefully.
dmarks: I support the Constitutional rights of everyone, even if they are rich.
You support extra Constitutional rights for the rich. You believe they should be able to speak louder than everyone else.
dmarks: No, I was advocating sound public policy. I reviewed the stands of "Americans For Prosperity", and subscribed and sent them money. Not because the Koch brothers are rich, but because this organization has good ideas.
They have very bad ideas. Their ideas involve making the rich even richer by making everyone else poorer.
dmarks: It was your confusion, when you called school board members and business owners plutocrats. So that is why we laugh at you.
You are the one who is confused, as I never did what you claim.
dmarks: You are lying. Prior to this comment you correctly identified my use of the "kicking our asses" line as FIGURATIVE. But your line didn't even make sense metaphorically.
I'm telling the truth. And what I said makes sense; you're just too dumb to understand.
This is what I believe. I think that the top tax rates should go back to 39.6% for everybody making over $300-400,000 a year. If some crazy-assed unsuccessful lunatic out there wants to say that this somehow makes me pro-rich, I cannot control that.......And I have NEVER said that the rich pay too much in taxes. That is an absolute bald-faced lie. I have only countered the idiotic notion that rich people haven't been paying their fair share when the ratio of total income tax to total AGI is presently 2.2:1. Yes, maybe they can pay more but to imply that they are somehow skating is patently false.
Dmarks,
Holy Crap!
John Myste said: "The GOP...They represent the wealthy and privileged first"
If this were true, they would not be so popular among the non-rich. And they are very popular among the non-rich.
Marketing takes money and the rich have it. Your conditional “if this were true,” makes a false assertion.
"It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up."
Since these policies are blindly racist, they boost rich blacks and blacks of means who are already standing tall... as well as those who are "down".
Again, this shows you don’t understand Affirmative Action. AF is not intended to help an individual. It is intended to repair the damage done to a race. You keep focuses on which individual gets what. The purpose of AF is not to give person X something. You are focusing on a purpose that does not exist. I will concede that there are others like you, who also did not understand the purpose of AF. However, the Supreme Court, which made it possible, did understand.
And also, due to the racist nature, the policies ignore whites in poverty.
Again, AF has nothing to do with handling “blacks in poverty.” It is a macro idea done to fix the damage done to a race so that those within that race, rich or poor, can have a chance to excel. It ignores whites in poverty and it also ignores cancer and it also ignores global warming.
I will concede that some AF policies are racist, and moreover, that AF itself is racist philosophy. It is a race that was crippled. We are talking about race. AF did its job, so I am not big proponent of most AF policies today. It it divisive and unproductive in many cases. However, it was needed in the past, and America is a much better place because it existed. I don’t mind hearing people agree with me that most AF policies should be retired. My only gripe is when they use arguments that betray a lack of philosophical comprehension to do it.
Sorry, I detest racism in all its forms. I refuse to accept policies designed to punish and reward people on their skin color.
As do I. Luckily, I am unaware of any such policies. AF is not about specific individuals; nor is about rewarding or punishing anyone.
Post a Comment