Saturday, August 18, 2012

Judge Judy's Cash

Judge Judy made 45 million dollars last year. Under the taxation system of Robert Reich and wd, the woman would have to pay to the federal government 77.65% (a 70% top rate and a total removal of the cap on Social Security ) of everything over the 15 million mark. So, on that final 30 million, she would have to fork over a total of $23,295,000. AND, since the woman also lives in California, she would have to kick in another $900,000 (10% minus the 70% of that amount that she could ostensibly deduct) on top of that sum. So, prior to any of the other deductions that Mr.s Reich and wd would still allow, the government would secure just over 80% of Judge Judy's earnings in excess of 15 million. That to me would be totally outrageous.......................................................................................First of all, it's morally wrong to confiscate that much private property from any one individual (if, I'm saying, they've earned it fairly and squarely). And, secondly, you would be penalizing risk-taking and success to such an obscene level that it will thoroughly eliminate incentive (no, people aren't motivated strictly by money but it is A factor) - especially, I'm saying, if these same people close a lot of the loopholes, too..........................................................................................Look, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be tweaking the top tax rates upward (I've said on numerous occasions that the Chuck Schumer compromise  is a good one). But this whole we can tax and redistribute our way to prosperity jag is absurd. I mean, even now we're frigging chugging along at a 71% consumption rate (as a percentage of GDP) and a 20% (and growing) government spending rate (the rest of the economy consists of investment - 12% and exports - -3%)  and, really, how in the hell is that working out for us?

57 comments:

John Myste said...

It bothers me that some people want to take near 100% of someone's earnings, because when Republicans hear a single nut say this, they forever more believe that this is a principle of liberalism, and they think being against this principle validates their twisted brands of conservatism.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, John, are you with me on the Chuck Schumer compromise?......And I'm very offended that you consider my colleague, wd, a nut.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Well, not really.

w-dervish said...

Will: Under the taxation system of Robert Reich and wd...

Robert Reich proposed this tax rate in an article he authored. I was not co-author. Also, this is yet another example of your obsession regarding the possibility of the rich being over-taxed. A subject you recently lied about... saying you "never" thought about the wealthy.

Will: ...she would have to fork over a total of $23,295,000.

Baloney. This would only happen if she hired a terrible accountant. Robert Reich's tax proposal takes this into account. In his article he writes, "During the 1950s, when it was 91 percent, they exploited loopholes and deductions that as a practical matter reduced the effective top rate 50 to 60 percent. Yet that's still substantial by today's standards. The lesson is government should aim high, expecting that well-paid accountants will reduce whatever the rich owe".

John Myste said...

I don't know, Will. I don't care for the way our tax system works anyway. I live in a suburb of Dallas. Where I live, there are no fancy homes, just moderate ones. Anyone here making a million dollars per year is rich. There are other places, 50 miles away, where if you make a million dollars you are surviving, for sure, but not rich. People are established in a certain standard of living. They cannot just move because they can no longer afford to live in place X, where they have always lived.

If tax cuts are uses to help people who suddenly found themselves in an untenable position due to a drop in economic activity, then basing them solely on income hits the wrong target.

If tax cuts are intended merely to stimulate the economy, then you need to figure out who will spend the windfall instead of banking it, which probably is not those making a million dollars or close to it.

In the city of San Francisco or NYC, someone making my income is probably poor, but I am doing pretty good where I am.

If we must base the tax cuts solely on income, then I am sorry to say that I think around 250,000.00 as a cut off makes more sense. I would even think maybe 100,000 or more would be a fair cutoff. A million is way too high.

As for the idea that these millionaires, or almost millionaires, will take the extra money and hire someone with it, I don't buy it. In some cases they may, but the idea that needy people will get more money if we just make sure wealthy people have more money is false.

If you give a 100.00 to a poor person he puts 100.00 back into the economy. The products and services he consumes are created by workers. His needs fulfilled, will create jobs. Giving money to rich people is a gamble. The supposed hope that some crumbs will fall from their plates into the mouths of the poor is a fool’s errand. They may not put the money back into the economy. They may save it or spend it abroad or invest it abroad. I would prefer public jobs, such as repairing our highway infrastructure, to trying to make sure the wealthy have enough to set their tables. The wealthy will make sure the wealthy have enough to set their tables, so long as we don’t raid their tables by taking 80% of the food on it.

dmarks said...

John said: "because when Republicans hear a single nut say this,"

True. The problem is we get a too many of these nuts saying this loudly, shrilly, and repeatedly. One of them even posts here. A lot.

John Myste said...

WD,

Baloney. This would only happen if she hired a terrible accountant.

So, you don't believe wealthy should actually pay this tax rate, but only have it.

Very good. What tax rate do you think the wealthy should actually pay?

John Myste said...

DMarks,

John said: "because when Republicans hear a single nut say this,"

True. The problem is we get a too many of these nuts saying this loudly, shrilly, and repeatedly. One of them even posts here. A lot.


Confirmation bias. A very small minority of liberals believe this, probably a number lower than the number of Republicans that believe we should blow up abortion clinics or make Christianity our national religion.

dmarks said...

John said to WD: "So, you don't believe wealthy should actually pay this tax rate, but only have it."

Yeah.. the accountant thing by WD confused me. He implies that it is good and proper for the rich to use the best accountant to pay as little taxes as possible.

John said; "Confirmation bias. A very small minority of liberals believe this, probably a number lower than the number of Republicans that believe we should blow up abortion clinics or make Christianity our national religion."

Quite true. I know that Obama and Biden are not part of this small minority.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Get with the program, wd. Most of the loopholes that were available in the 1950s were eliminated by the revenue neutral/bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986. A 70% rate today would be FAR MORE draconian than the 91% one during the Eisenhower era was.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

John, I agree that the million threshold is probably too high (I've suggested in the past between $300-500,000) but in today's political climate, I thought that the Chuck Schumer compromise was a doable one and so I've focused on it ($100,000 in many parts of the country is chump-change and I respectfully disagree with you on making that the threshold).

Jerry Critter said...

The real question is why is Judge Judy worth $45 million per year?

BB-Idaho said...

Why is Judge Judy worth $45 million a year?
..because there is a sucker born every minute. Presumably, she stashes her $$ off shore and probably pays at about 13%, like
those in similar shoes.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." H.L. Mencken (falsely attributed to P.T. Barnum)

Jerry Critter said...

I suspect that as a correllary you could add,
"No one lost an election by underestimating the Intelligence of the American voter."

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I can't cast dispersions on that one, Jerry. You're talking to a fellow who voted for Ross Perot not once but twice.

dmarks said...

"You're talking to a fellow who voted for Ross Perot not once but twice."

Both votes within 20 minutes of each other? You are in Chicago, right Will?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, Alabama and, truthfully, it was three times.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Why is'nt Judge Judy worth 45 mil? Evidently some pretty smart people think she's worth it.

I say good for you Judy,get all you can."America,what a country!"

dmarks said...

Rusty; Yup. A fool and his money.... but it's the fool's money, and if they want to spend it on her, it's not my business, for sure.

dmarks said...

All's good for Judge "Don't Sneeze on My Cupcake and tell me it's frosting!" Judy!

The Heathen Republican said...

"They may not put the money back into the economy. They may save it or spend it abroad or invest it abroad."

John, by this, are you under the impression that saving money does not put money back into the economy?

BB-Idaho said...

RE: "Why is'nt Judge Judy worth 45 mil? Evidently some pretty smart people think she's worth it."
..apparently..
“Judge Judy,” in fact, has become one of the favorite venues for the Obama campaign and its allies to reach sympathetic voters. When the courtroom reality show featuring a sharp-tongued former judge airs in swing states, it often comes with ads telling viewers that Republican candidate Mitt Romney uses tax havens and has shipped jobs overseas as a businessman.
The show is considered an ideal vehicle for commercials pushing the president’s reelection because such courtroom programs are watched by a large number of African Americans — twice the average share for television in general.
Those shows also disproportionately draw Hispanics, another voting bloc critical for an Obama victory." -WaPo



Rusty Shackelford said...



So,there you go BB....she's worth every penny...god bless her,I hope she makes 50 mil next year. I'd much rather see JJ getting the dough then....say some public school teacher who's only reason for getting up in the morning is the possibility of tenure and could'nt give a shit if their students learned math or science or not.

Jerry Critter said...

There's your republican mentality -- Rusty would rather have a television personality paid millions of dollars per year to entertain him than pay teachers a livable wage to teach his children.

dmarks said...

The 'livable wage' idea is pretty much meaningless, as you can't come up with one value that is valid in all situations. It is best just to pay a fair wage (one equal to the free market value of the work).

If we look at what is livable in each situation, it varies wildly. If the teacher has no kids and is married to someone in a lucrative upper managment position, the value of a livable wage is in this case $0.

BB-Idaho said...

'a fair wage (one equal to the free market value of the work)'
Free market oddity; the sarcastic
'judge' makes the same as 803.57 teachers. Surely she works 800 times harder?

dmarks said...

She works harder than the teacher (a tenure-loafer who wants to get as rich as possible while cheating the children out of education) Rusty refers to. Regardless, this value is determined by those who pay her. It's their business, not those of others.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Ahhhh Jerry....how is the weather on your unicorn farm today?

Jerry wants more money for public school teachers....instead of giving it to them we should put the money in a big pile and set it on fire....the results would be the same.We already spend over $90,000 per student age 9 to 15 and our math and science results are among the worst. I guess Jerry care not about value for his dollar.

The Heathen Republican said...

BB, it isn't about working harder, it's about value created. So yes, Judge Judy creates more value in TV advertising than a teacher does working in a classroom 8 months a year.

Don't get me wrong, I value what teachers do, but market wages are determined based on value and celebrities and athletes create more economic value. Sad, but true.

dmarks said...

Rusty, I want more money for public school teachers, actually. The great ones are worth far more than $100,000 a year. The lousy tenure-loafers and the ones in Detroit who do a terrible job and get 6 figures for it need $2.00 an hour.

Performance-based pay.

BB-Idaho said...

"Performance-based pay."
Oprah Winfrey $350Million/yr
Dr. Phil $80Million/yr
David Letterman $40million/yr
Matt Lauer $21million/yr
..since I don't watch these, I'll have to accept your word how wonderful their work is....

w-dervish said...

Conservatives ignore the value to society. The value as determined by the so-called "free market" is all that matters to them, because it justifies exorbitant overpayment and greed.

I don't watch any of the people BB-Idaho listed either, but I think these salaries are ridiculous. Others who work on those programs (workers who are also "adding value") are being underpaid so the "stars" can collect more.

Also, tenure is something that is EARNED. There are actually very few "tenure loafers", but dmarks makes sweeping statements condemning everyone who has EARNED tenure because he wants all protections for working people swept away. That way they are under the thumb of management more and their wages can be forced down.

Performance is subjective. If a teacher works in a well-funded school with affluent parents who can pay for tutors... should the teacher be rewarded for that?

The Heathen Republican said...

BB and WD, you're highlighting an important difference between left and right. Conservatives see how the market works -- celebrities are paid ridiculously high salaries, teachers are not -- and accept it. Because free markets are the best and most efficient way to determine value and allocate resources.

Progressives, on the other hand, see how the market works and want to impose their value on society. "We believe teachers are valuable that we need to ignore the market and choose how much to pay them."

This is an example of the authoritarian streak on the left. The left thinks it is smarter than the market aggregate, so the left gets to make decisions for the rest of us. Today you think it's teachers, and maybe tomorrow you think you should decide how much bankers, oil men, and community organizers should make.

w-dervish said...

HR: Because free markets are the best and most efficient way to determine value and allocate resources.

They aren't.

w-dervish said...

HR: This is an example of the authoritarian streak on the left.

It isn't. The people decide what is of value to society via our elected representatives. That's democracy in action, something that has nothing to do with submission to an authoritarian leadership.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Exactly HR....the left would have no problem dumping untold dollars down the money pit that is our public school system,while crying for more.

They hate the concept of "free market" where a persons value is based on either what they contribute or what they have to offer.Its comical, they never bitched about a UAW member getting 30 bucks an hour plus benefits for putting a tire on an Impala...a job a chimp would do for a couple banana's a day.

Rusty Shackelford said...



"The people decide what is of value to society via our elected representatives." Now,that comment ranks in the top five of the most ignorant things you've said WD....in fact it may very well top the hit parade.

BB-Idaho said...

"Because free markets are the best and most efficient way to determine value and allocate resources." Fortunately, the market is free, for it leaves me free to ponder the efficiency, value and resources that accumulate to a woman who at best
panders to her viewers and has the personality of a petulant third grader.

The Heathen Republican said...

I agree, there's no accounting for taste. Blame her viewers who buy the products advertised during her show. I didn't say the market had good taste, but if advertisers can make money off of her show, she's going to be paid well by the people who own the TV network.

w-dervish said...

Rusty: They hate the concept of "free market"...

They don't. They are simply smart enough to realize it isn't the answer to every problem. It has it's place, but relying on it solely it a very bad idea.

Rusty: Now, that comment ranks in the top five of the most ignorant things you've said WD....

You believe that because you're a Conservative, and Conservatives hate the concept of "democracy" where THE PEOPLE decide what is of value based on voting for representatives. It's comical, they never bitch about a small number of people being paid outrageous sums of money to do things that are of little value to society, and in some cases harmful to it. But they complain loudly at the very idea of working people being paid living wages.

This is an example of the authoritarian streak on the Right. It comforts them that there are those among us who are better than everyone else (the wealthy). They believe that only the wealthy should make the decisions, not the rabble whom they despise.

The Heathen Republican said...

WD, when I said free markets are the best and most efficient way to determine value and allocate resources, all you could respond is "they aren't."

Can you provide a more complete response? If not free markets, what economic system does best allocate resources efficiently?

"This is an example of the authoritarian streak on the Right. It comforts them that there are those among us who are better than everyone else (the wealthy). They believe that only the wealthy should make the decisions, not the rabble whom they despise."

I'm pretty entrenched in the conservative ideology, and I've never heard a single person on the right express this. Can you back up your statement with one or two conservatives who do believe this? Quotes and links would be helpful.

"You believe that because you're a Conservative, and Conservatives hate the concept of "democracy" where THE PEOPLE decide what is of value based on voting for representatives."

As a conservative, I believe democracy and free markets are intertwined; they work best together. You seem to think it's possible to have democracy without free markets.

The example I gave above about teachers seems to contradict your point. If you don't let the free market work -- in other words, some group of individuals (like elected representatives) set prices, wages, etc. -- we have entered authoritarianism (albeit authoritarians made up of elected people, but authoritarian nonetheless).

While you claim to espouse democratic values, the consequences of what you propose regarding free markets leads to the exact opposite of what you claim to value.

How do you explain the contradiction? Know that I am not trying to misrepresent what you said; I simply don't understand how you can reconcile these two contradictory ideas. How do you maintain a democracy without a free market?

dmarks said...

WD said: "and Conservatives hate the concept of "democracy" where THE PEOPLE decide what is of value based on voting for representatives."

No, we hate the concept of there being government control of these personal decisions. It is not an opposition to democracy at all: it is an opposition to intrusive government. Government intruding where it does not belong.

"But they complain loudly at the very idea of working people being paid living wages."

The "living wage" is a meaningless thing.

"This is an example of the authoritarian streak on the Right."

Your authoritarian streak is quoted above, where you want authorities to force these decisions on individuals.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Conservatives ignore the value to society. "

Actually, the value to society is #1 in our minds.

dmarks said...

HR said: "I'm pretty entrenched in the conservative ideology, and I've never heard a single person on the right express this. Can you back up your statement with one or two conservatives who do believe this? Quotes and links would be helpful."

Yes, not a single person expresses this.

John Myste said...

Will,

I agree that 100,000 is chump change in some parts of the country, as I think I discussed, as well, in the comment that provoked you state this, respectfully, of course.

John Myste said...

Heathen,

Nice one. I suppose if the "save" it America, it does put it back into the economy in the form of interest, dividends, or whatever. It does not put all of it back, but some of it in a recurring way.

The problem is, they then "save" interest, dividends, etc.

I don't think saved money gets the economy moving unless it is saved at a bank that is in dire need of it.

A repeated cycle of spending all it probably works better.

The Heathen Republican said...

"It does not put all of it back, but some of it in a recurring way. The problem is, they then "save" interest, dividends, etc. I don't think saved money gets the economy moving unless it is saved at a bank that is in dire need of it."

John, from this I think you are saying that saved money doesn't get put back into the economy. I'm not sure how you distinguish "dire" banks from all other banks, but I'd prefer to distinguish between all banks and mattresses.

All savings, dividends, interest, etc. that is saved in a bank remains fully a part of the economy. This is easily demonstrable since banks do not sit on their funds; they loan them out to other customers.

In fact, every saved dollar has a multiplier effect of its own since banks aren't required to keep 100% of funds on-hand in reserve. I think the number is closer to 10%, so most funds are loaned out to others and immediately find their way back into the economy.

Only savings in a mattress are actually taken out of the economy. So to say that the wealthy will just save their extra funds and pull that money out of the economy is not a true statement. All of that money stays in the economy.

John Myste said...

All the money does not even stay in America. Moreover, it is not equivalent to someone who needs it immediately, spending it immediately.

The Heathen Republican said...

"While you claim to espouse democratic values, the consequences of what you propose regarding free markets leads to the exact opposite of what you claim to value."

I'd just like to point out WD's failure to respond to my comment above regarding the dichotomy between democracy and free markets. Do you only respond out of emotion WD, or are you capable of rational argument?

dmarks said...

HR: The explanation for the dichotomy here is that WD is an economic fascist. He argues countless times that "Democracy" should include the democratic leaders making all of our personal economic decisions for us.

He opposes the free market, insisting that the only people allowed to make decisions in the free market are "plutocrats". This seems preposterous until you look at it through his eyes and remember his arguments that all entrepreneurs and small business owners are plutocrats. And his claim that if you are choosing to buy a Hyundai automobile (in that specific example), it is not you who is making the decision, it is a plutocrat. This would only make sense if Hyundai buyers were all plutocrats.

That is the only logical conclusion from WD's argument.

So there you have it. A phobia that any person acting in the economy who is not one of the annointed ruling elites (to WD, he only qualified people to make any economic decision for anyone) is a plutocrat. And the only way to keep these plutocrats from doing even more harm is to make sure that the ruling elites (who are democratically elected) control every single aspect of the economy, and nothing is left to chance... er plutocrats.

w-dervish said...

HR: I'd just like to point out WD's failure to respond to my comment above...

I'm not failing to respond, I was looking for those quotes you wanted. They're hard to find unless you know exactly what you're looking for... because Conservatives usually keep their real feelings on this matter hidden. And the internet has, no doubt, been largely scrubbed of the quotes where Conservaties speak of their worship of the wealthy and hatred of the poor.

Because their true feelings being widely known would make it difficult for them to fool people into voting Republican.

HR: If not free markets, what economic system does best allocate resources efficiently?

A mixture of regulated markets and Democratic socialism, which is what we have, although the mixture is wrong. Too much faith in markets and not enough socialism.

HR: I'm pretty entrenched in the conservative ideology, and I've never heard a single person on the right express this. Can you back up your statement with one or two conservatives who do believe this?

Edmund Burke: It does me no harm if a man is allowed to engage in a profession as servile as that of tallow-maker, candle maker, or hair dresser, but it does society considerable violence if such a man is allowed to participate in the political discourse.

Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum: Registering the poor to vote is "like handing out burglary tools to criminals".

HR: As a conservative, I believe democracy and free markets are intertwined; they work best together. You seem to think it's possible to have democracy without free markets.

I believe in regulated markets. "Free markets" (unregulated) promote greed and survival of the fittest (and most amoral and dishonest). Since you support "free markets" you oppose democracy, as a majority of people aren't foolish enough to think markets can operate without regulation.

HR: The example I gave above about teachers seems to contradict your point. If you... let elected representatives... set prices, wages, etc. -- we have entered authoritarianism...

I didn't say anything about elected representatives setting prices or wages.

HR: While you claim to espouse democratic values, the consequences of what you propose regarding free markets leads to the exact opposite of what you claim to value.

It doesn't.

HR: How do you explain the contradiction?... I simply don't understand how you can reconcile these two contradictory ideas. How do you maintain a democracy without a free market?

Support for free markets and democracy are contradictory ideas. How do you maintain democracy with free markets?

HR: Do you only respond out of emotion WD, or are you capable of rational argument?

All my arguments have been rational. Which of them do you *think* have been "out of emotion"? Can you give any examples, or was this comment just a meaningless ad hominem?

I think it's the latter, as Conservatives frequently like to say they are rational while progressives are "emotional". So, nothing new in you using this old attack from page one of the Conservative playbook.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Actually, the value to society is #1 in our minds.

It isn't. HR admitted it. Regarding Judge Judy, he said "there's no accounting for taste". Yet he (and you) support a system that hands her 45 million dollars that could be put to better use elsewhere.

dmarks: ...Government intruding where it does not belong.

You're talking about the government "intruding" where it *does* belong.

dmarks: The "living wage" is a meaningless thing.

Not to the person who isn't earning one.

dmarks: Yes, not a single person expresses this.

Worship of the wealthy and despising the poor is at the heart of Conservatism, although Conservative thinkers usually use code language to disguise their true feelings, because if the masses realized this less of them could be fooled into voting Republican.

dmarks: he argues countless times that "Democracy" should include the democratic leaders making all of our personal economic decisions for us.

I've never argued this.

dmarks: He opposes the free market, insisting that the only people allowed to make decisions in the free market are "plutocrats". This seems preposterous until you look at it through his eyes and remember his arguments that all entrepreneurs and small business owners are plutocrats.

[1] Yes, I am opposed to the idea of free markets. [2] I'm VERY strongly opposed to the plutocrats making the decisions. [3] I have never argued that "all entrepreneurs and small business owners are plutocrats". You're lying about this like you lied about Joe Biden promising moon colonies when it was actually Newt Gingrich.

dmarks: That is the only logical conclusion from WD's argument.

Your conclusions are largely illogical.

dmarks: A phobia that any person acting in the economy who is not one of the annointed ruling elites...

Are you referring to George bush? He is the only "ruling elite" I can think of who was annoited. For the record, I'm strongly opposed to this kind of "annoiting".

dmarks: ...ruling elites... control every single aspect of the economy...

By "control" do you mean regulate? If so, then my answer is yes. I believe all (or virtually all) aspects of the economy should be regulated.

The Heathen Republican said...

WD, glad you didn't abandon the conversation. Earlier you had said...

"[Conservatives/Republicans] believe that only the wealthy should make the decisions, not the rabble whom they despise."

Your substantiation for this claim was to quote Edmund Burke and Matthew Vadum. Neither back up your claim; neither claims only the wealthy should make the decisions. Point HR.

On this same subject, you also said "the internet has, no doubt, been largely scrubbed of the quotes..." You win a tin foil hat and I win another point.

On to the meat of the discussion around free markets and democracy.

WD: "I believe in regulated markets."

So do I. We agree, so no points awarded.

WD: ""Free markets" (unregulated) promote greed and survival of the fittest (and most amoral and dishonest)."

Your definition of free markets is flawed; you are confusing laissez-faire with free markets. As I've documented, there are well understood market definitions; yours is incorrect. You are more correctly attributing anarcho-capitalism to Republicans, and that's not what we stand for.

WD: "Since you support "free markets" you oppose democracy, as a majority of people aren't foolish enough to think markets can operate without regulation."

Not only are you using the wrong definition of free markets, you are confusing me with a libertarian. Republicans, like you, believe in market regulation. The difference is in the scale of that regulation: we believe in minimal regulation, you do not. (Here is my position on regulation.)In my view, you believe in excessive regulation. But that's just an opinion.

I hope you can see the shades of grey here. I see your usual responses to Will and dmarks and see that you can't control your anger and you seem pretty black and white. Because you like regulation and hate Republicans, you assume Republicans oppose regulation. Simply not true.

"I didn't say anything about elected representatives setting prices or wages."

Actually I made sure to carefully represent what you said. You did say this, "The people decide what is of value to society via our elected representatives. That's democracy in action..."

We were all discussing the value of teachers versus celebrities. The value of a teacher equates to the wages we pay. Wages are a price. You said the market improperly values teachers and society should do that through our elected representatives. Ergo, you advocate elected officials valuing teachers by setting appropriate wages. Another point for me.

I'm very sorry you refused to answer my other questions; we seemed to be making progress. The core question I had for you was why you believe democracy contradicts free market capitalism. You ask how democracy can be maintained and I point to 230 years of America.

You make it sound axiomatic that democracy and free markets cannot coexist. It is not axiomatic, so you need to explain it to an ignorant person like me. Simply restating it doesn't persuade me. Can you try again?

Our free markets are declining at the same time our democracy is declining. I attribute this decline to an increase in regulation and Democratic socialism, the very things that you value. You profess to want to kill free markets and save democracy, but your are not getting what you want from what you believe.

"All my arguments have been rational. Which of them do you *think* have been "out of emotion"? Can you give any examples, or was this comment just a meaningless ad hominem?"

Not meaningless at all. My goal was to provoke you into responding to a thread that you seemed to have abandoned. My ploy worked.

John Myste said...

Heathen,

You have taken to giving yourself points as a means of persuasion. This does not persuade. It is like trying to convince people you are pretty by saying: "see, I pretty." I can assure you, it does not make you prettier.

The Heathen Republican said...

Lighten up John. I'm trying to keep myself entertained.

John Myste said...

Fine, then I will remove the stick!