Or who carries what sign, I reckon.In the case of the tea party, the sentiment is there, whether it is flows from a central organizing body or not. And it's not one or two outliers, either.
How many ugly signs before it's a problem? How many racists is too many? How often can the rest of the group look the other way, or hide behind a lack of central authority before rational people start take notice?
While I can't deny there are certainly going to be some racist people in the tea party, how would you then explain Herman Cain becoming the tea party's darling? Conservatives are lining up behind him in droves. If the racist elements in the tea party were that significant, surely someone else would've ended up in the position Cain is currently in, regardless of the recent troubles his campaign seems to be having.
While I can't deny there are certainly going to be some racist people in the tea party, how would you then explain Herman Cain becoming the tea party's darling? Conservatives are lining up behind him in droves. If the racist elements in the tea party were that significant, surely someone else would've ended up in the position Cain is currently in, regardless of the recent troubles his campaign seems to be having.
I'll "explain" Cain when he wins the nomination -- which he won't.
that makes no sense though -they are opposed to one another.
-Wait till we hear from Newt Gingrich's Atheist Muslims.
When the KKK endorses you, are signs necessary?Rather than answer that silly question, I'll ask you one.
Why do you hate the occupy movement? What are they for that you're so against?
I don't hate them, actually. Well except for the handful of yahoos that torch and vandalize s$$$, and I don't hate them either, really.
I agree on a few points that actually focus on the relationship between corporate or other lobbyists and how much control is surrendered to them. What I don't agree on is the attitude that you deserve at least 35 or 40k per year for breathing, or any other point tied to that fallacious idea.Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
From what I can tell, the OWS has never advocated state controlled everything. Most, from what I can tell, want government oversight similar to what was in place before Reagan, with many variations on that (Banking regulations and less open boarders to unequal trade partners). The "Robin Hood tax" that the G20 is currently debating is something many endorse (along with Bill Gates, the leaders of France and Germany, and the current bills sponcers in congress). They also want state managed health care system similar to what almost every other developed nation has been able to achieve (exact model TBD, thats up to experts). There have been various calls for a raise of the minimum wage to something that will allow people to work 40 hours a week and stay over the poverty level. Finally, something needs to be done about educational costs (and requirements for jobs), though no one really has any good proposals there.
Now, from those positions, you go both to the far left and right all accross the spectrum. They really have no real consensus.
While I can't deny there are certainly going to be some racist people in the tea party, how would you then explain Herman Cain becoming the tea party's darling? Conservatives are lining up behind him in droves. If the racist elements in the tea party were that significant, surely someone else would've ended up in the position Cain is currently in, regardless of the recent troubles his campaign seems o be having.Or who carries what sign, I reckon.In the case of the tea party, the sentiment is there, whether it is flows from a central organizing body or not. And it's not one or two outliers, either.
How many ugly signs before it's a problem? How many racists is too many? How often can the rest of the group look the other way, or hide behind a lack of central authority before rational people start take notice?
It has been argued that cain is as much of a token as the rnc head was, although I hope he succeeds despite such accusations.
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Amen.
I am curious however, how much per year do you think a person does deserve for breathing?
Simple answer: Nothing.
They deserve nothing*. What should they be provided? Enough to not worry about shelter or sustenance.
|
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Amen.
I am curious however, how much per year do you think a person does deserve for breathing?
Simple answer: Nothing.
They deserve nothing*. What should they be provided? Enough to not worry about shelter or sustenance.
IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.
And i would be fine with that. The problem is that we have one system where if you're rich you get the free lunch in the form of lower tax rates, breaks, and incentives, a military that will secure your possessions overseas (whether or not they belong to you) and if you're working poor (a phrase swiftly becoming redundant) you're not supposed to get anything.
If anything it should be the other way around.
Democrats may be social engineering socialist socialites but at least they cop to it. Republicans pretend to be for a lack of government interference until their clientele either need a bail out or a moral issue passed.
|
|
IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.And i would be fine with that. The problem is that we have one system where if you're rich you get the free lunch in the form of lower tax rates, breaks, and incentives, a military that will secure your possessions overseas (whether or not they belong to you) and if you're working poor (a phrase swiftly becoming redundant) you're not supposed to get anything.
If anything it should be the other way around.
Democrats may be social engineering socialist socialites but at least they cop to it. Republicans pretend to be for a lack of government interference until their clientele either need a bail out or a moral issue passed.
The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.
The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.
And they own what % of the wealth? And when did OWS say anything about the top half?
Let's not go down this road AGAIN, please.
|
|
The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.And they own what % of the wealth? And when did OWS say anything about the top half?
Let's not go down this road AGAIN, please.
I'll simply never agree to redistribution of wealth in a free market capitalist society--they own the percentage of wealth they earned through their labors, intelligence, business decisions, and combinations thereof. The very small percentage living a nonproducing parasitic life off of 'family money' certainly don't make up enough of the population to matter.
The majority of very wealthy in the US didn't print their own money; they either offered a good or service for which other people were willing to pay, or they actively invested in the entrepreneurship of someone else who offered a good or service the rest of us found useful or necessary.
Also, I don't understand the second question, about OWS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.
And rich people people make money in capital gains, not income. Convenient isn't it?
|
|
No one at all?IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.
Simple answer: Nothing.
They deserve nothing*. What should they be provided? Enough to not worry about shelter or sustenance.
No, no-one at all.
I owe nothing to someone else's children. Beuracracy makes adoptions a long and painful and expensive process; were it not so, many more orphaned or abandoned children would be adopted, and muck quicker, than actually are--it's unbelievable that American families actually adopt from other countries because it's easier than adopting American children in need.
I'll simply never agree to redistribution of wealth in a free market capitalist society--they own the percentage of wealth they earned through their labors, intelligence, business decisions, and combinations thereof. The very small percentage living a nonproducing parasitic life off of 'family money' certainly don't make up enough of the population to matter.
The majority of very wealthy in the US didn't print their own money; they either offered a good or service for which other people were willing to pay, or they actively invested in the entrepreneurship of someone else who offered a good or service the rest of us found useful or necessary.
Also, I don't understand the second question, about OWS.
And I'll simply never agree with your apparent belief in this country as a meritocracy. Since we'll never agree, can we skip the argument (and accompanying thread derailment)?
|
No, no-one at all.
I owe nothing to someone else's children. Beuracracy makes adoptions a long and painful and expensive process; were it not so, many more orphaned or abandoned children would be adopted, and muck quicker, than actually are--it's unbelievable that American families actually adopt from other countries because it's easier than adopting American children in need.
What do you propose for those who cannot support themselves?
|
|
The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.And rich people people make money in capital gains, not income. Convenient isn't it?
And a great many of the super rich who do make most of their money from capital gains spend massive amounts of cash on goods and services, not to mention philanthropy.
|
|
And I'll simply never agree with your apparent belief in this country as a meritocracy. And since we've never agree, can we skip the argument (and accompanying thread derailment)?I'll simply never agree to redistribution of wealth in a free market capitalist society--they own the percentage of wealth they earned through their labors, intelligence, business decisions, and combinations thereof. The very small percentage living a nonproducing parasitic life off of 'family money' certainly don't make up enough of the population to matter.
The majority of very wealthy in the US didn't print their own money; they either offered a good or service for which other people were willing to pay, or they actively invested in the entrepreneurship of someone else who offered a good or service the rest of us found useful or necessary.
Also, I don't understand the second question, about OWS.
I'm not forcing you to reply to my opinions. And we don't argue that much, do we?
Also, I don't think it derails the thread, since it's about the precepts behind the OWS movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not forcing you to reply to my opinions.
No, but you're forcing people who want to discuss OWS to read around them.
And we don't argue that much, do we?
Not specifically -- I just don't see the point of rehashing the same old positions yet again. Far better to simply concede that not everyone on this thread agrees, and that it is possible to disagree without being stupid and/or ignorant. At the very least, economic screeds need their own thread.
Also, I don't think it derails the thread, since it's about the precepts behind the OWS movement.
I don't believe that is the case. Where you see people asking for a hand out, I see people asking simply for a game that isn't rigged. But surely going off about, say, adoption is off topic?
Not enough to make a dent in unemployment figures.
And a great many of the super rich who do make most of their money from capital gains spend massive amounts of cash on goods and services, not to mention philanthropy.The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.And rich people people make money in capital gains, not income. Convenient isn't it?
|
|
What do you propose for those who cannot support themselves?No, no-one at all.
I owe nothing to someone else's children. Beuracracy makes adoptions a long and painful and expensive process; were it not so, many more orphaned or abandoned children would be adopted, and muck quicker, than actually are--it's unbelievable that American families actually adopt from other countries because it's easier than adopting American children in need.
If I could answer that, I should be at the White House.
Having come from very unfortunate circumstances and made of myself what I am, I have very little sympathy for the situationally poor.
Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule--I'm no Kantian.
No one at all?IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.
Simple answer: Nothing.
They deserve nothing*. What should they be provided? Enough to not worry about shelter or sustenance.No, no-one at all.
I owe nothing to someone else's children. Beuracracy makes adoptions a long and painful and expensive process; were it not so, many more orphaned or abandoned children would be adopted, and muck quicker, than actually are--it's unbelievable that American families actually adopt from other countries because it's easier than adopting American children in need.
here, we agree.
|
|
If I could answer that, I should be at the White House.
Having come from very unfortunate circumstances and made of myself what I am, I have very little sympathy for the situationally poor.
Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule--I'm no Kantian.
Fair enough. I thought about making the 'you just want poor people to die' comment and leaving, but this was much more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Amen.
I am curious however, how much per year do you think a person does deserve for breathing?
$25k. Employed or not. Obviously, it would be preferable if people were employed, but 100% employment isn't realistic. Neither is hanging the unemployed/unemployable out to dry.
This would be after taxes, which should be nothing at that level. The standard deductible should be $25k.
This would also be after health insurance. Again, which should be nothing.
There is a non-profit in California (I forget the name, I heard about it on NPR months ago) who is working on housing the homeless. They've found that each homeless person costs the state around $100k a year, just for continuing to breathe. They can house them, feed them, and provide medical care for one person for $25k a year. Simple math says give it to them.
The fact is, the economy works best when the wheels at the bottom are turning. If the poorest people among us are taken care of and have a small amount of disposable income, those wheels turn nicely. If not, well, there are very good reasons why the rich live in fear.
|
|
I'm not forcing you to reply to my opinions.No, but you're forcing people who want to discuss OWS to read around them.
And we don't argue that much, do we?
Not specifically -- I just don't see the point of rehashing the same old positions yet again. Far better to simply concede that not everyone on this thread agrees, and that it is possible to disagree without being stupid and/or ignorant. At the very least, economic screeds need their own thread.
Also, I don't think it derails the thread, since it's about the precepts behind the OWS movement.I don't believe that is the case. Where you see people asking for a hand out, I see people asking simply for a game that isn't rigged. But surely going off about, say, adoption is off topic?
As to my adoption comments, they were in response to the question of TOZ with regard to who should receive support--my guess was he was thinking that surely I wouldn't let everyone fend for themselves--and, certainly, children are largely incapable of caring for themselves.
I can't say I really understand how discussion of economics in a thread devoted to a movement centered around concerns in economics is unwelcome, I bow out nonetheless.
I can't say I really understand how discussion of economics in a thread devoted to a movement centered around concerns in economics is unwelcome, I bow out nonetheless.
Andrew:
Pardon my caution. If you earnestly want to have this conversation, please start a thread and I will happily participate in detail later tonight. And while I've seen this particular ideological debate burn down many a thread, I do not wish to simply dismiss your views. I don't think we'll change anyone's mind, but perhaps I'll learn something new. :)
I'll simply never agree to redistribution of wealth in a free market capitalist society...
We don't live in a free market capitalist society.
|
|
I'll simply never agree to redistribution of wealth in a free market capitalist society...We don't live in a free market capitalist society.
You're absolutely right; everything has way too much regulation, but we're pretty close. Shoot! I was supposed to stop reading this thread. Must go to bed now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And a great many of the super rich who do make most of their money from capital gains spend massive amounts of cash on goods and services, not to mention philanthropy.
And many more do not. I gave 20 bucks to charity last week, does that mean i don't need to pay taxes?
Come on. Trickle down economics was a myth before everything was made in china.
Shoot! I was supposed to stop reading this thread. Must go to bed now.
That's disingenuous -- you were asked to do no such thing.
If and when you do want to have a serious conversation about economics and social justice, you know where to find me. :)
I can't say I really understand how discussion of economics in a thread devoted to a movement centered around concerns in economics is unwelcome, I bow out nonetheless.Andrew:
Pardon my caution. If you earnestly want to have this conversation, please start a thread and I will happily participate in detail later tonight. And while I've seen this particular ideological debate burn down many a thread, I do not wish to simply dismiss your views. I don't think we'll change anyone's mind, but perhaps I'll learn something new. :)
Andrew, you haven't said much about economics. You have mentioned progressive tax rates, how people should make their own way in life without burdening others, that redistribution of wealth is wrong, a little bit on how the rich spend money, an honest statement that you don't have all the answers in life, another on how children of other people are not your problem and another little bit on how messed up the adoption system in this country is. All of this has very little to do with economics, but a lot to do with your own ideology and views. While economics certainly influence our views, they are indeed separate animals -something that people in ows and the tea party alike should consider.
The federal tax rate in the US is progressive: the wealthier you are in terms on income (not capital gains), the more you pay in taxes. Tax shelters and incentives breaks apply mainly to investments, not base income from your job. 70% of all taxes to the federal government comes from the top half of incomes in the US.
IMHO, no-one should be given anything: no free lunches. Work and produce, pave your own way.And i would be fine with that. The problem is that we have one system where if you're rich you get the free lunch in the form of lower tax rates, breaks, and incentives, a military that will secure your possessions overseas (whether or not they belong to you) and if you're working poor (a phrase swiftly becoming redundant) you're not supposed to get anything.
If anything it should be the other way around.
Democrats may be social engineering socialist socialites but at least they cop to it. Republicans pretend to be for a lack of government interference until their clientele either need a bail out or a moral issue passed.
Actually 100% of taxes come from the top half of incomes in the US. 50% of households pay no income tax.
Actually 100% of taxes come from the top half of incomes in the US. 50% of households pay no income tax.
Bolding and italics mine.
Nobody in this country who buys anything or works pays zero taxes. Income tax is not the only tax. It is the tax for people with significant income. Are you advocating taxing people with no significant income? Because I can tell you how that turns out.
Actually 100% of taxes come from the top half of incomes in the US. 50% of households pay no income tax.
This lie needs to be beaten to death with a stick, set on fire, fed to crocodiles, put through a paper shredder, fed to a Bull, picked up in a plastic baggie and then thrown away with the rest of the ...
Look carefully at your own statement.
100% of taxes come from
50% of households pay no ------>income<------- tax
Do you see the difference there? Income taxes are not the only kind of taxes people pay. People pay social security tax. Medicare tax. Property taxes land taxes sales taxes, state income taxes, estate taxes... an entire HOST of taxes. Income is just one of them. You cannot equivocate income taxes with ALL taxes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I simply do not get the claims that de-regulation is a good thing. At the end of the 30s, we implemented regulations after the deregulated ecconomy drove the country into a massive depression. For fourty years we had relatively little instability and saw a decent amount of prosperity. In the 80s Reagan started deregulation. Since then, we have had huge spikes corruption, multiple massive banking scandals, and a number of burst bubbles caused by too much lending on speculation that all would have been prevented by the safeguards that were in place before Reagan. The government's job is to maintain stability, and deregulation does a remarkable job at failing to do that.
Actually 100% of taxes come from the top half of incomes in the US. 50% of households pay no income tax.This lie needs to be beaten to death with a stick, set on fire, fed to crocodiles, put through a paper shredder, fed to a Bull, picked up in a plastic baggie and then thrown away with the rest of the ...
Look carefully at your own statement.
100% of taxes come from
50% of households pay no ------>income<------- tax
Do you see the difference there? Income taxes are not the only kind of taxes people pay. People pay social security tax. Medicare tax. Property taxes land taxes sales taxes, state income taxes, estate taxes... an entire HOST of taxes. Income is just one of them. You cannot equivocate income taxes with ALL taxes.
Judging by wikipedia's graph income tax makes up a little less than half the overall tax revenue of the US.
I just found this link which aggregates various news/social media/video sights in real time to show what is going on with OWS. My god its information overload.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The last time the income gap was this big was in 1928. Any history buffs care to tell us what happened back then?
I simply do not get the claims that de-regulation is a good thing. At the end of the 30s, we implemented regulations after the deregulated ecconomy drove the country into a massive depression. For fourty years we had relatively little instability and saw a decent amount of prosperity. In the 80s Reagan started deregulation. Since then, we have had huge spikes corruption, multiple massive banking scandals, and a number of burst bubbles caused by too much lending on speculation that all would have been prevented by the safeguards that were in place before Reagan. The government's job is to maintain stability, and deregulation does a remarkable job at failing to do that.
Very well said, and I absolutley agree.
|
And, of course, being accused of "hating" for expressing a different view isn't really the most democratic way of addressing things...Lynch mobs are one of the purer forms of democracy.
I'm sure blacks lynched in the south post-Civil War ear to the 1960's would disagree.
Typical OWS violent rhetoric and mindset.
|
|
I am curious however, how much per year do you think a person does deserve for breathing?
$25k. Employed or not. Obviously, it would be preferable if people were employed, but 100% employment isn't realistic. Neither is hanging the unemployed/unemployable out to dry.
This would be after taxes, which should be nothing at that level. The standard deductible should be $25k.
This would also be after health insurance. Again, which should be nothing.
There is a non-profit in California (I forget the name, I heard about it on NPR months ago) who is working on housing the homeless. They've found that each homeless person costs the state around $100k a year, just for continuing to breathe. They can house them, feed them, and provide medical care for one person for $25k a year. Simple math says give it to them.
The fact is, the economy works best when the wheels at the bottom are turning. If the poorest people among us are taken care of and have a small amount of disposable income, those wheels turn nicely. If not, well, there are very good reasons why the rich live in fear.
I think I can agree with that, especially if its as cost effective as you say it is.
1. Give everyone health care (and unlike canada, include dental care).
2. Give everyone a place to stay and food.
3. Give them bus passes.
4. And if they are capable of working and just can't find any, push them and help them find some.
I'd say don't give them any cash. Give them like, food vouchers and stuff.
In the end it would result in like 25k as you mentioned, but it ensures that the money goes where its supposed to, and removes the problem of drug addled welfare cases who buy coke instead of feeding their 3 kids. It also ensures they go to a grocery store instead of takeout, since takeout is more expensive.
I wouldnt mind the idea of requiring people to meet requirements before being allowed to have and keep children. I've seen too many abusive welfare cases.
Typical OWS violent rhetoric and mindset.
Huh!?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure blacks lynched in the south post-Civil War ear to the 1960's would disagree. Typical OWS violent rhetoric and mindset.
They could disagree. They would be wrong.
You seem to be operating under the idea that democracy=good. While democracy has its benefits it is far from perfect. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner is a very democratic decision... its just not really fair to the sheep.
A lot of civil rights advancement is about giving rights to individuals in SPITE of democracy, not because of it.
Why do I feel like someone just took a dump in the pool?