Sunday, May 29, 2011

Batty Battle-Lines

When I first started blogging four years ago, I firmly believed that most of the rigid/delusional thinking in politics was on the right; the far-right, specifically. I mean, how could I have NOT gotten that impression; Hannity, Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell (God rest that miserable bastard's soul, huh?)?..................................................................................................But, I'm telling you, now that I've been doing this for a while, I can tell you, unequivocally, that there is just as much predictable partisanship and lunacy on the far-left (at least in the frigging blogosphere, I'm saying) as there is on the far-right. I mean, just in terms of policy, I'm saying - just as the far-right wants to solve every societal problem with a tax-cut, the far-left wants to solve that same societal problem with a new government program and/or a buffering of an existing one.....................................................................................................And some of the other stuff that gets thrown around is equally numbing; 90% top tax rates, compulsory voting, compulsory unionization (every business with over 50 employees MUST have a union, whether the workers want it or not), a Great Britain style single-payer health-care system, super-duper/mega protectionism, pie-in-the-sky minimum wage rates, etc., etc.. That, and they never want to negotiate/concede ANYTHING. I'm telling you here, when Matt Stone of "South Park" said that he "hated conservatives, but that he REALLY hated liberals", he had to be referring to this crew and their moral/intellectual superiority. I mean, come on, folks, even my kitty will wiggle eventually.

18 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

Looking at the politics of the last couple of years, it appears to me that the Democrats are much more willing to compromise than the republicans.

As far as extremists go, neither the left or the right are willing to compromise. That's part of their extremism.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The Republicans have been disgraceful/hypocritical (I refer you to my post, Obama/Romney/DEMINT Care). No argument from me on that one, Jerry.

Jerry Critter said...

I find it "interesting" that capital gains, which one earns without doing any work, is taxed at half the rate that wages are, which one works very hard to earn.

Seem like maybe it should be the other way around.

Rusty Shackelford said...

"Capital gaines,which one earns without doing any work." You've got to be kidding....putting your money at risk,investing in companys that create jobs...much more stressful then digging a ditch...and much more valuable to society.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yeah, I was gonna say, "I hear you, Jerry. But it (investing) does involve some risk. And sometimes people lose (money). But on the larger issue, yes, I think that we agree. Income is income and it should all be taxed the same."

Jerry Critter said...

But it (investing) does involve some risk.

True, but the reward for the risk is the profit, regardless of the tax rate. The higher the risk, the greater the potential reward.

Also, most capital gains come from the sale of stock or property. In the sale of stock, the money goes to whoever is buying the stock. It does not go to the company (excluding IPOs and buybacks). It is not an investment in a company or corporation. They do not get the money to use.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Like I sad, I have no problem taxing this as regular income, at the highest rate if in fact it applies (not everybody who sells a house would necessarily fit that bill).

Jerry Critter said...

And there is a fairly large capital gains exemption for the sale of a primary residence.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Good point.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Jerry...do you understand that when someone buys stock in say Microsoft,first they are putting that money at risk,second you are increasing the working capital of the company,allowing expansion,third you are improving the companys credit rating.And yes,if you are fortunate the company you invested in was well run,you stock went up and you made a couple bucks.Or,you could have put your money into GM and due to very poor management and greedy unions you could have lost your investment or a large part of it.
There is a one time capital gains exemption on the sale of your primary residence,but I think you have to be 55 or older to qualify.

Dervish Sanders said...

Rusty: second you are increasing the working capital of the company, allowing expansion.

No, you're wrong. When someone buys stock their money goes to another person who is selling that stock... which is NOT the corporation (unless we're talking about an IPO). Perhaps this explains why Rusty is a conservative? Pretty basic/simple stuff like this... and he just doesn't understand.

Will: the far-left wants to solve that same societal problem with a new government program and/or a buffering of an existing one

You're wrong too. Most of the ideas you listed are good ones. But I'm not for compulsory unionization (if you're referring to something I said on this blog, it was just an idea I threw out there... in reaction to an idea of yours I found similarly ridiculous, I believe, although I don't understand why anyone would NOT want to be in a union).

I don't know what "super-duper/mega protectionism" is, but it does not sound like a good idea... it would probably be as bad an idea as throwing the doors wide open (as we have).

I also do not know what "pie-in-the-sky" minimum wage rates are, but it sounds like the number would be pretty high... and wouldn't work.

I am totally in favor of negotiating... with a reasonable negotiating partner. The current Republican Party isn't reasonable. Also, Matt Stone can go fVck himself. South Park is sometime funny, sometimes seriously unfunny, and sometimes seriously insulting/in extremely bad taste.

It's one thing for comedy to push the envelope (in terms of what's in "good taste") in order to be funny... but it with South Park that rarely is the case. When they present something that is in bad taste... it more often than not is also very unfunny.

I think their heads have gotten a little too big for their own good... and it is past time that South Park be cancelled.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,when you purchase stock in a company you become a part owner of that company and have a direct say in the direction taken by management and in election of the board.With some companies you can indeed buy thier stock directly from them.

As for South Park,personally I think they have a pretty damn good view of society and pretty much poke everyone in the eye.Some of the shows are'nt ment to be funny.Hell of a lot more enjoyable watching South Park then listening to some friggin outdated boring movie score...now that would be called having no life at all.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I know for a FACT that I make more money now than I would have been making had those boorish union nimrods taken over. I got a promotion (a new position was actually created for me) and a healthy raise that NEVER would have been allowed to go through with the unions trying to control virtually every decision.

Dervish Sanders said...

Well, I guess the debate is settled then. Will knows for a FACT that Union bosses are nimrods who aren't really interested in seeing that companies succeed. Their real agenda is power for themselves. Which they will enjoy until they are able to force the company out of business. I'm totally convinced by your anecdotal story Will. Unions are the bad guys and corporations are the good guys. Next step: change my voting registration to Independent.

Eric Noren said...

"now that I've been doing this for a while, I can tell you, unequivocally, that there is just as much predictable partisanship and lunacy on the far-left"

Welcome to the party. And you only get the vitriol directed at you for occasionally disagreeing with the lefties. Imagine if you actually were conservative the kind of vitriol you would hear.

I'm growing more and more convinced that it's simply a tactic to shut out opposing viewpoints because the left is afraid to hear them (and they may not know how to respond to them).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

HR, good to hear from you.......Yeah, I don't know, man. I'm beginning to think that they actually hate the moderates more. We're traitors who somehow lack principles.

Dervish Sanders said...

HR, your party held the presidency for 8 years. Now it has regained control of the House. HOW have your viewpoints been shut out? I don't think anyone on the Left is "afraid" of what you have to say.

We want EVERYONE to know that you're in favor of a budget designed to transfer even more of our country's wealth to the elites... by killing seniors. The more people who know this -- the more Democratic victories there will be in 2012.

Eric Noren said...

derv, I was referring to lefty bloggers, and it's not a matter of free speech... obviously I have my very own forum to spout my right-wing craziness. I was pointing out the tendency for lefty bloggers to define "trolls" as those who simply disagree; marking comments from the right as spam; and name-calling and shouting someone down until they voluntarily stop commenting.

I haven't seen these tactics on right-leaning blogs... only the left. I agree that the left shouldn't be afraid of anything the right has to say, but I don't see a better explanation for those tactics.