# Go Barack Go!!!!!!



## SvK (Feb 4, 2008)

Go Obama.......


Go Youth
Go California
Go Super Tuesday
Fired Up!
Ready To GO!

.......we are with you!

(link to the man's GREATEST speech.......why not watch? What can it hurt?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms

SvK


----------



## SvK (Feb 4, 2008)

If this man inspires you, VOTE for him.....

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 4, 2008)

So SvK - have you decided who you're voting for yet?


----------



## SvK (Feb 4, 2008)

Nick....

We NEED your VOTE Buddy....

pretty please with a cherry on top 

SvK


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

This weekend my daughter and I will attend our local Washington State Caucus to support Obama. We plan to come armed with background information so we can provide the details - like which Christian church this "Muslim terrorist" has been attending all these years. And to show that Obama is not just empty hope/hype, but actually has concrete proposals.

Based on previous experience, some people come to the caucuses ill-informed. We'll bring info about Hillary as well - not the "she murdered Vince Foster" [email protected], but stuff like supporting the war, supporting Lieberman over Lamont, and supporting the anti-Iran resolution. Then there's NAFTA, welfare reform, funding from health insurance companies... The triangulations (and capitulations) go on and on...

If it's McCain vs. Clinton, I might just vote for McCain - or nobody. Democrats who do not stand for Democratic values will not get my vote.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 5, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> This weekend my daughter and I will attend our local Washington State Caucus to support Obama. We plan to come armed with background information so we can provide the details - like which Christian church this "Muslim terrorist" has been attending all these years. And to show that Obama is not just empty hope/hype, but actually has concrete proposals.
> 
> Based on previous experience, some people come to the caucuses ill-informed. We'll bring info about Hillary as well - not the "she murdered Vince Foster" [email protected], but stuff like supporting the war, supporting Lieberman over Lamont, and supporting the anti-Iran resolution. Then there's NAFTA, welfare reform, funding from health insurance companies... The triangulations (and capitulations) go on and on...
> 
> If it's McCain vs. Clinton, I might just vote for McCain - or nobody. Democrats who do not stand for Democratic values will not get my vote.



Hillary is a Centrist Democrat, as was Bill, as was JFK for that matter. THe Left wing of the party is not the sum total of Democratic values. 

NAFTA was supported by every ex-president, including that well-know right wing Republican Jimmy Carter. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice-President and yet Democrats turned against him, because he had the integrity to stand by his position on the war, which to me was disgraceful of them. You do not turn against a long time leader in your party because you disagree with him on one issue. I am proud of Hillary that she did not.

Hillary will get my vote today but if she loses the nomination to Obama I hope and trust that the Deaniacs will not be able to move him more away from the center to the left because that is not where the American public is and it will be McGovern all over again.


----------



## SvK (Feb 5, 2008)

go JON!

JON and hid daughter are...........

FIRED UP!
They're READY TO GO!

SvK


----------



## Dan Selby (Feb 5, 2008)

As an outsider to this (a Brit) I am very intrigued by this election and have found interesting and hugely encouraging the level of political interest and engagement this election seems to be creating in the US.

I'd be interested to hear what anyone's views are on whether or not there is a likelihood of the losing Democratic nominee running as the bottom half of the ticket (is that the phrase?) There seems to be quite a bit of real animosity between Obama and Clinton. And, if Clinton wins, would Obama be more likely to accept the VP nomination or the other way round? And, would that affect the way any of you vote? And, is an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket viewed as the best way to beat McCain?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> NAFTA was supported by every ex-president, including that well-know right wing Republican Jimmy Carter. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice-President and yet Democrats turned against him, because he had the integrity to stand by his position on the war, which to me was disgraceful of them. You do not turn against a long time leader in your party because you disagree with him on one issue. I am proud of Hillary that she did not.


While that might be true, those are not my positions. 

This is exactly why I will bring the info to the caucus. Because those positions might align with other's views. In that case, if they support Hillary, they do so with good reasons.

Personally, the most upsetting thing about the centrist capitulators (Pelosi) to me is that they took impeachment off the table - for purely political reasons. Bush has outright admitted that he committed a felony. He broke the FISA law. It's a matter of public record. In addition, he has ordered renditions, waterboarding and has disregarded Habeas Corpus. What does the guy have to do to get impeached, shoot somebody?

If the "centrist" Democrats can't tell the difference between right and wrong, they simply don't deserve my vote.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Dan Selby @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> I'd be interested to hear what anyone's views are on whether or not there is a likelihood of the losing Democratic nominee running as the bottom half of the ticket...


One view is that the worse it gets, the more likely they run together - in order to unite the party.


----------



## bluejay (Feb 5, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> What does the guy have to do to get impeached...



An intern?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 5, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > NAFTA was supported by every ex-president, including that well-know right wing Republican Jimmy Carter. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice-President and yet Democrats turned against him, because he had the integrity to stand by his position on the war, which to me was disgraceful of them. You do not turn against a long time leader in your party because you disagree with him on one issue. I am proud of Hillary that she did not.
> ...



Congratulations, you are the first person I have read who is so far on the left that he thinks Nancy Pelosi is a Centrist.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Feb 5, 2008)

..........


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Congratulations, you are the first person I have read who is so far on the left that he thinks Nancy Pelosi is a Centrist.


Thanks Jay!

Heck, if you look at the votes that she's brought to the floor - and the votes that she has squelched, you'd think she was a Republican. 

Just because a rich, older woman is from San Francisco doesn't mean she's a liberal. She refuses to meet with anti-war activists. She does not stand with the democratic base - which opposes the war in no uncertain terms. 

BTW, Joe Lieberman is no centrist.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
_On November 7, Lieberman won reelection as an independent candidate with 50% of the vote. Democratic challenger Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Republican Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[105] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 70% of Republicans. Despite still considering himself a Democrat, Lieberman was endorsed by numerous Republicans across the United States. They actively spoke out in favor of his candidacy. National conservative radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck were among those that endorsed Lieberman on their shows. Lieberman was also the focus of websites such as ConservativesforLieberman06.com."_

Obama supported Lamont. Hillary Lieberwoman supported Joe. I support Obama.

I can only hope that Obama doesn't decide to become another Republican-Lite Democrat.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 5, 2008)

Dan Selby @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> As an outsider to this (a Brit) I am very intrigued by this election and have found interesting and hugely encouraging the level of political interest and engagement this election seems to be creating in the US.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what anyone's views are on whether or not there is a likelihood of the losing Democratic nominee running as the bottom half of the ticket (is that the phrase?) There seems to be quite a bit of real animosity between Obama and Clinton. And, if Clinton wins, would Obama be more likely to accept the VP nomination or the other way round? And, would that affect the way any of you vote? And, is an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket viewed as the best way to beat McCain?



It depends. I don't know if it's real animosity towards each other or if it's just a close race and both these guys are tough competitors. Who ever wins the nomination imo, will get the support of the other. The last thing the dems need is a divided party and it doesn't seem as if Obama or Clinton would be so selfish as to turn their back on the party nominee, whomever it may be.

Also, I hate to say it but in the overall election race and gender are going to play a bigger roll in people's decision. There's still a large portion of the populace that would have a hard time with a black president or a women president. It's a sad fact but a fact none the less.

So whoever wins on the dem side will have to deal with that and we may see another election that shows a deep split between the more urban centers of the US and the more traditional sectors of the US (ie. midwest, southwest, southern, northwest). The guys that voted for Bush will most likely vote for McCain. The guys that voted for Gore 8 years ago will probably stay democratic be it Hillary or Obama.

The other factor to consider is that the minority populations in America have been steadily growing. Both Obama and Clinton are made possible by the increasingly diversifying younger population. 20 somethings in American are more of a diverse and mixed population racially. However it stacks up it's clear to see in America that the adult populace is much different than it has been in the past.

For me on a personal note this election has been quite inspiring. I grew up in a pretty overtly racist part of the country and was harassed quite a bit for being a minority while growing up. I was stable enough and smart enough that it didn't affect me too badly, but I'd be lying if I said that it didn't affect me at all. Especially considering that aside for music I was a pretty normal kid. Not that good in sports and just okay grades. 

What's inspiring is that's all changing. Minorities are gaining a voice that wasn't there before. I think that both Obama and Clinton kind of represent that. A lot of problems are created when whole sections of a population aren't allowed to participate in the direction of their lives. The message of "hope and change" resonates for a lot of people because deep down many people know that it's time for both. Change has been happening and this election really embodies that. Many people in their "pragmatic" cynicism down play this. But it's so important for people that they feel that they can contribute something of value to America. Many people are looking at Obama and feel hope. That if he can do it maybe they can do something important too. I see it in peoples faces at rallies. It's unmistakable the impact that this guy is having. This country needs this now.

The reason why I despise conservatism is because by nature it wants to hold on to the status quo. The status quo is terrible imo. It's divisive and quite frankly pretty hard on anybody who doesn't fit into that standard. The status quo to me represents hypocritical standards set up in American on Puritan values by the people who so called "founded" this country. To me it's these values that treated black Africans like animals instead of offering them real opportunities to work in America and that slaughtered native Americans whole sale. 

The only reason I'm a democrat is not because I agree with social welfarism, but because it's a party that at least includes people. My only hope is that the party does move away from ultra-liberalism and demands inclusion, production and participation from all Americans.

But, I've not given much thought to the matter :lol:


----------



## synthetic (Feb 5, 2008)

SvK, voted for your guy today. I didn't really take him too seriously until I saw your enthusiasm for him, but I like where he's going. Drudge said that Obama started polling ahead of Hill in California this week for the first time. 

Thought you'd like to know that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

"Joe Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice-President and yet Democrats turned against him, because he had the integrity to stand by his position on the war, which to me was disgraceful of them"

I'm against him for several reasons, Jay, not just because of that one issue. And he never was a Democrat.

Integrity? I first noticed him when he gave that speech saying that Clinton really should be impeached for the terrible thing he did (ruining the dress). He's really smarmy.

Then Gore - who was a terrible candidate even though he would have been an excellent President - chose him in order to distance himself from Clinton. Yuck.

Now Lieberman is so obsequious about McCain that I'm 95% sure he's going to be his running mate. Gag.

Yech.

Oh, and being for the war in Iraq is more than sufficient grounds for divorce as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

My apologies, but when I got to the polling station I voted for Hillary.

And I finally was able to put my finger on why: because I'm just not able to convince myself 100% that Obama is who we all want him to be: the second coming of John F. Kennedy.

But I still like him very much, and if he's the nominee I'll still be happy and campaign like crazy for him. It's just that I feel Hillary's understanding of the issues has more breadth.

But I was 50/50 until this morning.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> JonFairhurst said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, the most upsetting thing about the centrist capitulators (Pelosi) to me is that they took impeachment off the table - for purely political reasons. Bush has outright admitted that he committed a felony. He broke the FISA law. It's a matter of public record. In addition, he has ordered renditions, waterboarding and has disregarded Habeas Corpus. What does the guy have to do to get impeached, shoot somebody?
> ...


_“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”_

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Some would say that Churchill already lost the argument, due to Godwin’s Law, but I think his timing excuses him.


----------



## Dan Selby (Feb 5, 2008)

Thanks for your considered reply, Jose - interesting to read your take.  I think there are parallels to the zeitgeist in Britain in 1997 - the desire for change... though I must say I think it seems far greater in the States today.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 5, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> But I was 50/50 until this morning.



I always thought you were 5150.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

That's one more, i'n it?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 5, 2008)

josejherring @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> The reason why I despise conservatism is because by nature it wants to hold on to the status quo. The status quo is terrible imo. It's divisive and quite frankly pretty hard on anybody who doesn't fit into that standard. The status quo to me represents hypocritical standards set up in American on Puritan values by the people who so called "founded" this country. To me it's these values that treated black Africans like animals instead of offering them real opportunities to work in America and that slaughtered native Americans whole sale.
> 
> The only reason I'm a democrat is not because I agree with social welfarism, but because it's a party that at least includes people. My only hope is that the party does move away from ultra-liberalism and demands inclusion, production and participation from all Americans.



Funny. Not one conservative I know would define their political position to be anything like you have defined conservatism. Fundamentally, most are for smaller government rather than larger government. Most present a positive outlook and belief in the individual human ability to achieve great things...and despise a socialistic society that looks to government to solve people's problems. In fact...I would venture to bet that most people in this country are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Too bad there is not a third party that would be viable to claim that platform. 

So...we all pick and choose our best candidate at the time, cutting our losses on the issues that are not a priority for us. 

And to say that the principles that founded this country are inherintly racist or even to take that a step further (not meaning to put words in your mouth Jose)...that they are not something that should be aspired to is hogwash. This country was not founded on slavery. We had a civil war for goodness sakes over the issue and guess which side won? And which party was on that winning side? The party of Lincoln. The Republicans. In fact, the Republican party was created as a direct opposition to the democrats expanding slavery in the mid 1800s. And the Republican history shows constant opposition of slavery at every turn. Slavery is not something the Republican party or its conservative principles have EVER supported and they have proven over history to fight against it at every turn. Slavery is a shameful part of this country's history. But to imply that the country was founded upon slavery and to try to lay that at the feet of "puritans"??? My mind is spinning. Seriously. Who brought the slaves here Jose? White hick men from Africa? 

Back from the slavery tangent...
Politics are complicated for sure. Not every Democrat is a socialist. Most are not. But also...not every conservative is a racist or "puritan". 
The stereotypes go both ways. Different areas of the country have different issues which are important to them due to the problems around them. 

But thinking that the Democrats are somehow above divisive politics is laughable at best. They have shown time and time again that their campaigns are based on the "two Americas" notion. One only has to look at the recent comments of Bill Clinton implying that Barak Obama was just a "Black Candidate" essentially to be brushed aside like Jesse Jackson was years ago...to see that the Democrats are really no different than what you claim/define conservatives to be. 

I really wish more minorities would look at the conservative principles for themselves and realize that they probably have more in line with the Republicans than they do with the Democrats. They will be treated as individuals and not lumped into a group. They will be inspired to achieve great things...and encouraged to pursue their dreams...rather than being hindered by the democratic politics of divide everyone into a group and keep them fighting with each other. They will begin to believe in their ability to provide for themselves and strive for entrepreneurship in our capitalistic society...rather than rely on the social welfare of some government entity where they are just a social security number. They will begin to see that the only one they can rely on to make their own lives better is themselves. Millions have come from nothing to now be huge muti-million dollar business owners over the years. Why? It was not a government handout or social program that got them there. It was their own hard work and core values that did. And that is what the conservative principles mean to me. And is primarily why I am a conservative when you get right down to it. That in broad general terms is conservatism. Nothing else.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

A well written post, Brian. Though much of what you wrote seems more Libertarian than Conservative - at least in the current political environment.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 5, 2008)

Brian there isn't a thing that you've written that I disagree with. Seriously. But, I must say that your mind is "spinning" because you've missed my point entirely.

I'm not saying that this country was founded on racist principles. I'm specifically saying that conservative thinking in America is based on Puritan values that lead to divisiveness. It's these principals that looks on others has less than and that holds up our English forefathers as the ideal to aspire to in this country. Said ideals in the past have lead to things like slavery and the slaughter of Native Americans. 

I've known for a long time that it was the Abolitionist party of Lincoln that rallied against slavery. But that party that lead America in progressive thinking back then has now fallen pray to the most limited minded thinking imaginable.

They say they want less government but under the "Patriot Act" I've personally felt government in my face more than ever.

But you're right. It depends on where you fall. You choose the party that best aligns with your ideals then you hope that they don't go too far socialist or too far reactionary. Between a welfare state or a martial law state somewhere in between we strike a balance.


Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

> Fundamentally, most are for smaller government rather than larger government.



"Smaller government" means "I don't want to pay to help other people."



> Most present a positive outlook and belief in the individual human ability to achieve great things...and despise a socialistic society that looks to government to solve people's problems.



And that's pretty much the same thing. It sounds so reasonable whenever you hear conservatives make arguments along those lines, but really they're simply justifying not wanting to help people!

Obviously I don't believe that the way to solve every problem is to throw money at it, but I don't want to live in the kind of society that just lets people eat cake - which is why it completely baffles me when I meet big-hearted, charitable people who are mean when it comes to politics. Maybe it's because they don't realize that everyone else isn't like they are?

The other thing is that conservative people tend to have a whole host of other orientations that go along with their organized lack of compassion for other people. They tend to favor military solutions to everything, they tend to say "it creates jobs" (code words for "environment be damned"), and they tend not to be socially liberal like Brian is.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Nick,

A good example is health care. Millions have no coverage. And, as shown in Sicko, just because you have coverage doesn't mean you're covered.

So, what's the conservative/libertarian solution? There isn't one.

Who can pay for health care? Three choices: individuals, employers or the government. Conservatarians want no government intervention. That leads to the Sicko scenarios. They don't want to burden businesses, so employers aren't required to pay. That leaves the individual. But do they want to set a minimum wage that can afford rent - let alone health care? No way.

Their solution: poor people - and their children - do not get health care. Conservatarians even complain that people without insurance drive up emergency room costs. Those greedy, injured poor people!!!

Their last resort is to claim that charities are the solution. But even though charitable donations are often tax deductible, that hasn't worked so far. 

Their motto seems to be "winners take all; losers suffer."

Personally, I have decent heath coverage. But I have three kids. How the hell they will be able to afford health care in a few years is beyond me.

What? If you get cancer you are supposed to take a third job???


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 5, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> "Smaller government" means "I don't want to pay to help other people."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



There are many ways to help people Nick. The question is...what is the most effective way to help a person make their own lives better? Is it better to give someone a ration of fish every week for food...or is it better to teach them how to fish and perhaps give them some fishing line and a hook? Which way puts them in a position to get them on their feet long term? 

Is it better to have a welfare state with no motivation to get out of that situation? Or is it better to provide opportunities for individuals to get back to work where they can make a living for themselves and hold their heads high with pride that they worked hard to get out of poverty? 

In the capitalistic society we have (which works when it is allowed to work)...one significant key to wealth is to be a small business owner. Have a product that people will want to buy. I don't know...a hot dog stand...a travelling masseuse...heck...a composer who writes music for nutty films. If the government is to have any role in all of this, I think it should be to help foster that business and allow it to grow. Give tax breaks so the business owner can spend their hard earned money on expanding their business...thus creating new jobs, etc...etc...and not have to spend their hard earned business money on someone else's gov't handout. 

It is not that conservatives don't want to help people at all. It is just that their definition of help is very different than yours (from what I am reading). Of course conservatives want to help people. They have children too and want them to have a better future than they did growing up. But they feel the way to do it is to help people help themselves. They want to create an environment where people can create their own wealth and over the long term...those people will be much better off than sitting around waiting for welfare checks in the mail with no way to get off of that. 

Speaking of children and wanting them to have a better future...shouldn't the government at least completely abolish the death tax? Why is it that the government should come in at the time of death and take half or more of a person's wealth away from that family? Isn't the whole point of being productive citizens, creating wealth and providing for one's family being able to provide future inheritences for your children as well? That money afterall was already taxed by the gov't when it was made throughout your life. Shouldn't we allow everyone to inherit that money tax free? It is probably the one tax issue that enrages me the most. 

Right now the tax free limit on passing on an inheritance to your heirs is $2.5 Million per person...but that will go back down to $1Million if Hillary and Obama have their way and allow that tax law to expire in a couple years. $1Million. In kansas...that might simply be a father's farm passed down to his sons. In L.A....that might be 3/4 of a house. $1Million in assets is not really that much any more for the middle class American. We are not talking liquid money here. It is a home and a modest pension. The death tax should be repealed permanently. And if there are democrats here who support their candidate for other reasons than this...they really should be vocal about this one issue to them and your congress person. 

Back to conservatives not wanting to help people...
Of course the situation is more complicated than what I describe above. There are discrepancies in education among different societal groups. There are individuals who have a hard time getting out of negative influences in their lives when they are growing up. But you know what...no one can tell me it can't be done. No one can tell me that a kid from an inner city can not become someone powerful and wealthy and that they are destined for a life of poverty. There are too many kids who have grown up and found a way out of that on their own through dilligence and hard work.

Conservatives want to help people Nick. And they feel the best way to do that is to not make them dependent on government handouts and give them the tools to create success and wealth themselves. Get government out of their way.

Is some of that libertarian in thought? Yes Jon. It is. But again there is a balance. The Libertarians (which are really the extreme right...not Republicans)...is for no Government what so ever. None. No taxes...no nothing...maybe a president. But there obviously has to be some order. Some standards for some functions or society. Some laws, etc...So...it is all about finding balance. How much government? How much is acceptable? Everyone has a line drawn somewhere on the spectrum. 

I see the Republican party and see there are many individuals within it who represent a broad spectrum of individuals from far right Libertarians to those pesky socially liberal, fiscally conservative folks. :wink: Take the one heated issue of abortion for example. I know many Republicans who are pro-choice. But not all for the same reasons. Some are pro-choice because they feel it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. But others don't see it as a woman's rights issue at all. They see it as a Gov't issue. They simply see it as an area where the government should not be getting involved in a personal matter. I.E....why should there be a law on this? But then again there are Pro-Life republicans who are against abortion for religious reasons. But some are against it not because of religion, but because of their belief in the presciousness and innocence of life trumping all other arguments against. 

My point being that even in the Republican party...there is a broad spectrum of reasons why people believe what they believe. Everyone has a priority list of what is more important for them on any given day and what really matters is what was first on that list when they were in the voting booth. 

Like Nick explaining his decision today to vote for Hillary. Yes he likes Obama and would not hate to see him as president...but at the time of rendering a decision in the booth...Nick felt Clinton was the one to pick for the reasons he explained.


----------



## david robinson (Feb 5, 2008)

hi guys,
greetings from australia.
we just changed government.
nothings changed yet.

look at history, does anything really change?
nothing radical anyway.

good luck with your choices.

unfortunately, the organizations that run the world are unseen to us.
governments are mere puppets.
Banks and Oil companies, amongst others, control governments.

Want control?
don't use Banks or run automobiles.

Best.
DR9.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 5, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Speaking of children and wanting them to have a better future...shouldn't the government at least completely abolish the death tax?



Oh, you must be referring to the "lazy bum on the sofa welfare program." Also known as the "reward people who have never worked a day in their life tax subsidy."

What does this program incentivize? Being born to wealthy parents? Upper class hitmen? 

Do we really need to ensure that no Rockefeller will ever need to work again for all time?

I love it... Abolish the death tax! (Even Bill Gates and his father support an inheritance tax.) And abolish capital gains! We can't have people who earn money while they sleep pay taxes!

And then there's Huckabee's "fair tax" - no income tax, just sales tax. That would make working stiffs pay taxes on nearly all they earn while the wealthy pay taxes on a tiny percentage of earnings. That's about as fair as twenty lashes.

Republican tax policy favors those who contribute the least -> Invest in an overseas factory, shut down the local plant and pay no taxes on earnings. Whoopie!!! Make sub-prime loans, bundle them, sell them off and make a killing - and pay no taxes. Party time!!!

And the people who work full time or multiple part time jobs day in and day out for the best years of their lives? Let them eat cake - and let them pay taxes on it.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 5, 2008)

david robinson @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> hi guys,
> greetings from australia.
> we just changed government.
> nothings changed yet.
> ...



:lol: Exactly! I didn't want to spoil the excitement around here but now that you've mentioned it...


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 5, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Oh, you must be referring to the "lazy bum on the sofa welfare program." Also known as the "reward people who have never worked a day in their life tax subsidy."
> 
> What does this program incentivize? Being born to wealthy parents? Upper class hitmen?
> 
> ...



You missed the part where I explained Jon that in order to hit those marks...it is not that hard really. It is 3/4 of a house in Los Angeles, or NY or San Francisco. It is a farm and family business in the mid west. We are not talking about Rockefellers here...we are talking about middle class Americans. When talking about the rich americans, we are talking about the people who are providing work for most Americans. You are talking about biting the hand that feeds. 

I am sorry...I only read your post above as a sarcastic rant of envy. Who cares how people come into their money. Pretty much everyone who is wealthy worked their tail off to get there and to provide for their families. Here is an interesting quote I found Jon. 



> John Weicher, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, _"Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation."_



To say that there are a large number of "Paris Hilton's" who would be benefitting from abolishing the Death Tax...is so wrong. And at the end...who cares about Paris (in this example). Why should you care? Why should the Gov't care? It is not the Gov't's money. It is the individual's money. There is no Gov't entitlement to an individual's money in this country. The current tax structure did not even come into play until the early-mid 1900's. And yet the government seemed to function just fine before then. And what about the individuals who inherit wealth and go on to do great things with it? It is not an issue with their wealth you have a problem with Jon. It is an issue with how they were raised and their parent's ability to instill a respect for and responsibility for having wealth and the good that can come of it. I would hope that you would not let envious emotion drive your political postions Jon. 

I am not saying abolish all taxes...but in the case of the death tax, this particular money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. It is double taxation. And that is wrong Jon. And yet on your death bed, the gov't is going to come in and take half of what you leave for your family and you are in full support of that? Wow.

I am not sure I fully support Huckabee's flat tax plan but there are certain things that would not be taxed in it...like a pre-determined list of "essentials" for living. But everything else you buy would be at a higher level than it is today. So...those who consume more under his plan...would pay more taxes. And since the wealtier American's tend to consume more goods and more higher priced goods...they would pay more taxes. 

But that would be about what happens now too. The top 10% of Americans pay about 65% of the taxes in this country. The top 5% pay over 50%. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. The riches Americans are already paying most of the taxes in this country Jon. 

And any American who makes under about $20,000 give or take is not paying any income taxes anyway. So...the "poor" are already not paying taxes at all. 

What you really mean is...


> We can't have people who earn money while they sleep not pay taxes.



That is a scary world you are alluding toward Jon. At least for me. So, you are saying that you have no investments what so ever? None? No retirement? If you do, you are one of "those people" Jon. Investment in businesses is a very important part of a capitalistic society. It gives people a slice of ownership in a corporation and vote in how things are done. It gives the company capital for which they can grow and thus provide more jobs and such. 

Like it or not...the money of the Rockefellers and the Paris Hilton's of the world is allowing others to benefit from those investments in some way. And ultimately...there is no way you could convince me that if you had a lot of money in your future you would not do the same thing and invest it to allow it to "grow in your sleep." 

Please.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 5, 2008)

david robinson @ Tue 05 Feb said:


> hi guys,
> greetings from australia.
> we just changed government.
> nothings changed yet.
> ...


And where will the cynical approach lead to? "Everything and everybody is corrupted so the hell with us all!" - is that the alternative you suggest? Or is it: "Let us go into the woods, pick up fruits, and be free!" ??

I personally admire those who take politics seriously. They are usually responsible, reliable, and helpful people. They are people who refuse to being acted upon, they are people who think for themselves. They sometimes think also for those who don't think, and act for those who don't act, only 'react'. They are 'players' not just 'watchers'. I am no American either, and I am not involved in politics. But I admire the vertical people who stand for their political beliefs, especially when they are doing it in such a civilized manner. As long as this kind of people do exist and are active, there is hope that the financial corruption that you describe won't prevail.



> Want control?
> don't use Banks or run automobiles.


I never owned a car, and I barely use the bank - mostly for depositing :D and sending :cry: checks.


----------



## sbkp (Feb 5, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> $1Million in assets is not really that much any more for the middle class American.



Um, maybe I misunderstood, but...

Last year (according to the WSJ), $1M net worth would get you into the top 8% of the US. $6M would get you into the top 1%. Assuming we can agree that the top 1% most wealthy families in this country could reasonably be called "wealthy," are you really saying that the 7% in between $1M net worth and "wealthy" are somehow typical of the American middle class?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2008)

> There are many ways to help people Nick. The question is...what is the most effective way to help a person make their own lives better? Is it better to give someone a ration of fish every week for food...or is it better to teach them how to fish and perhaps give them some fishing line and a hook? Which way puts them in a position to get them on their feet long term?



It's better to teach them how to fish - and to give them as equal as possible an opportunity to learn how to fish. That's why I'm for Alternative Action, for example, but you won't find any conservatives who are.

Just bread and circuses isn't the answer either, but there's a chronic underclass even in the richest country in the world (not counting the debt).




> Is it better to have a welfare state with no motivation to get out of that situation? Or is it better to provide opportunities for individuals to get back to work where they can make a living for themselves and hold their heads high with pride that they worked hard to get out of poverty?



Well, you're ahead of me. 

The problem is that it's not that simple. We've tried "workfare," and it also has problems - you hear about kids being left home because the mother has to be gone all day, etc.

There are no easy answers to the question of where to balance equality and freedom.

But the difference between liberal and conservative orientations in the US isn't just a matter of liberals wanting social services and conservatives wanting to keep their money. As I said, conservatives are wrong about many other things too.





> In the capitalistic society we have (which works when it is allowed to work)...



Another difference between liberal and conservative. Capitalism works most of the time, but it also has some notable blind spots, and that's when regulation is absolutely necessary. 




> one significant key to wealth is to be a small business owner. Have a product that people will want to buy. I don't know...a hot dog stand...a travelling masseuse...heck...a composer who writes music for nutty films. If the government is to have any role in all of this, I think it should be to help foster that business and allow it to grow. Give tax breaks so the business owner can spend their hard earned money on expanding their business...thus creating new jobs, etc...etc...and not have to spend their hard earned business money on someone else's gov't handout.



No argument there. But should huge oil companies be subsidized so they can reap obscene profits from an American public that has no choice but to pay their asking price? Oil companies do create jobs, after all.

Why do conservatives tend not to see anything wrong with that picture?



> It is not that conservatives don't want to help people at all. It is just that their definition of help is very different than yours (from what I am reading).



It depends on the person what the definition is, I think. 



> Of course conservatives want to help people.



Then why do they vote for people who don't?

Seriously!



> They have children too and want them to have a better future than they did growing up. But they feel the way to do it is to help people help themselves. They want to create an environment where people can create their own wealth and over the long term...those people will be much better off than sitting around waiting for welfare checks in the mail with no way to get off of that.



Liberals feel the same way, but why does it come down to an image of some lazy person waiting for welfare checks? Sure there are people like that, but reality is far more complicated.

And now I have to bring back another point: why are conservatives always the ones who are eager to jump into wars while liberals see war as a last resort? That has nothing to do with the Cold War socialism/capitalism questions we've been talking about.




> Back to conservatives not wanting to help people...
> Of course the situation is more complicated than what I describe above. There are discrepancies in education among different societal groups. There are individuals who have a hard time getting out of negative influences in their lives when they are growing up. But you know what...no one can tell me it can't be done. No one can tell me that a kid from an inner city can not become someone powerful and wealthy and that they are destined for a life of poverty. There are too many kids who have grown up and found a way out of that on their own through dilligence and hard work.
> 
> Conservatives want to help people Nick. And they feel the best way to do that is to not make them dependent on government handouts and give them the tools to create success and wealth themselves. Get government out of their way.



My philosophy: the government should leave things that work on their own alone, but when things don't work then we need government. That's why we have it in the first place.

And that's another fundamental difference between liberal and conservative outlooks: liberals believe in good leadership with a vision for the future; conservatives believe in leadership with a view to making a quick buck.

If that sounds ridiculous, listen to what Mitt Romney says. He's a pretty traditional economic conservative.


----------



## SvK (Feb 6, 2008)

CONGRATS TO OBAMA, 

1) We won more states .........Obama 14states / Hillary 8 states. 

2) We won more delegates. 

3) We've raised 3 times more money than her.....she has 10 million we have 30 million 

4) Whites voted for us in DROVES last night. 

5) Our margins of victory from state to state by far trounced her margins. 


GoBama! 

SvK


----------



## SvK (Feb 6, 2008)

States Obama won with (so far) more than 60% of the vote:

Alaska (over 70%)
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho (over 70%)
Illinois
Kansas (over 70%)
Minnesota
North Dakota

States Clinton won with (so far) more than 60% of the vote:

Arkansas


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Tue Feb 05 said:


> Jon Fairhurst said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really need to ensure that no Rockefeller will ever need to work again for all time?
> ...


Those would be some pretty nice houses.

I don't know the numbers at the moment (they change from year to year,) but right now, I think the first $1.6 million inherited is tax free. And if a couple has any sense to do a bit of estate planning, you can combine the husband and wife shares, even if they die at different times, making for the first $3.2 million tax free.

In principle, I'll agree with you that it's seems unfair that people's estates should be taxed. But iit also seems unfair that people are taxed for buying diapers for their kids. Or doing an honest day's work at their job - which is often taxed at a higher rate than what I pay, sitting on my ass, collecting dividends from the stock market.

Taxes are a drag. But both conservatives and liberals insist on some very expensive government endeavors, so we have to pay for them.

So if the woman behind the counter at McDonald's has to pay taxes on her wages so she can be taxed again when she buys diapers or shoes for her kids, then I think it's only fair for my son to pay a little tax on whatever he inherits over $3.2 million.


----------



## Thonex (Feb 6, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> I think it's only fair for my son to pay a little tax on whatever he inherits over $3.2 million.



Thanks Dad!! :D


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 6, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> So if the woman behind the counter at McDonald's has to pay taxes on her wages so she can be taxed again when she buys diapers or shoes for her kids, then I think it's only fair for my son to pay a little tax on whatever he inherits over $3.2 million.



55%+ is not a little tax. 

And when the current tax cuts expire in 2 years...the current tax free amount goes back down to $1Million per person. Which again is not that hard to achieve and touches on many middle class citizens when you factor in an estate and someone's IRA, etc...


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 6, 2008)

It's a sliding scale, with a maximum of _45%._ Which isn't even achieved until $1.5 million over the tax exempt amount (which is $2 million, not the earlier $1.6 million I said.)

So let's say we have a couple who do their estate planning like smart people so they get all those combination benefits. They kick the bucket with $7 million in assets. Their kids will pay about $1 million in tax on this inheritance. Hopefully they can still manage . . .




Thonex @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> Mike Greene @ Wed Feb 06 said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's only fair for my son to pay a little tax on whatever he inherits over $3.2 million.
> ...


This is all hypothetical, mind you! If I die today, all my son gets is my bar tab at Fantasy Island and a hard drive full of singers going, "ahhhhh, ahhhhh, ahhhhh, ahhhhh, ahhhhh, dooooooo, doooooo , dooooo, dooooo . . . ."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 6, 2008)

hahaha

I too have been sleepless at night, worrying about how to pass on all these millions to my daughter.


----------



## tobyond (Feb 6, 2008)

[quote:e69f902ae5="Mike Greene @ Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:45 am"] and a hard drive full of singers going, "ahhhhh, ahhhhh, ahhhhh, ahhhhh, ò'@   nw£'@   nw¤'@   nw¥'@   nw¦'@   nw§'@   nw¨'@   nw©'@   nwª'@   nw«'@   nw¬'@   nw­'@   nw®'@   nw¯'@   nw°'@   n


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 6, 2008)

"It's not the government's money..."

When I get paid, I get taxed. If I buy a song from you, the money is taxed again as income. You buy a sound library, and the developer pays income tax yet again.

Every time a dollar passes from one person to another, it is subject to tax.

Grandma earns money. It's taxed. She bequeaths it to the maid. Why shouldn't it be taxed? It passed from one person to another, didn't it?

Why earned money should be taxed while unearned money should not is beyond me.

BTW, the dead woman didn't get taxed twice. She's dead! The earner is taxed once. The inheritors are taxed once.

Don't reward wealthy do-nothings. Tax them so people who actually earn their money can be taxed less.


----------



## midphase (Feb 6, 2008)

"But still the principle of the government deciding, "ok...you make too much money. We can come in and take it now...we have decided that you can do fine with half." is simply disgusing to me. It is a play from the books of socialism and communism at its worst. "

The only people who make the argument are people who are very wealthy, anyone else is a fool to think that. I think words like Communism and Socialism are thrown around liberally by some as a sort of sounding an alarm. It's funny to me how the majority of people who live in the US are not even sure what they mean...they just know it's a "bad thing"

Wealthy individuals are generally wealthy because they've been able to take advantage of a system which favors them enormously over non-wealthy people....so why shouldn't they be taxed more heavily to balance things out? 

The median income in Los Angeles for a family (family...not individual) is $39,942! Could you actually imagine trying to live on that with maybe a couple of kids? I don't think so.

All those rich fat cats pulling in ridiculous 7 figure salaries and complaining that they're being over-taxed should just burn in hell as far as I'm concerned.

What does need to be fixed IMHO, is the way those tax dollars are spent, there's so much inefficiency both in Washington and in Sacramento and so much money being thrown away by the government.


----------



## madbulk (Feb 6, 2008)

I don't know who you think all these wealthy do nothings are. I've known lots of wealthy people. Only one do-nothing among em. The overgeneralization is crazy.

The unearned money you speak of is in my opinion mostly earned.

Dividends, for example, are not had by luck nor sloth for the most part. They're a product of education and prudence and probably some other nice stuff.


----------



## madbulk (Feb 6, 2008)

This really isn't fair to Steven. The poor guy just wants to have one little thread on this otherwise not especially political site to briefly mention that he's leaning toward Obama. And it becomes about the matter of factness of good and evil.
Can't believe I'm evil. I'm so psyched.


----------



## midphase (Feb 6, 2008)

Where is Nick P when you need him?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Wed 06 Feb said:


> But still the principle of the government deciding, "ok...you make too much money. We can come in and take it now...we have decided that you can do fine with half." is simply disgusing to me. It is a play from the books of socialism and communism at its worst.


The principle is good and fair. Money is not a personal, but a social thing. You don't own money, it's the society that grants you the right to buy things -- that's all that 'money' is. The society has the right to regulate how much each individual is allowed to buy. The more 'money' you make, the more you have to invest into the society you are part of. You can't make money outside society, so taxing it's a good social principle (the percentages are always subject to debate and change, but the principle is good). 

So, as I see it, it is not that the government takes you anything, the government just distributes your extra 'money' in a fair way within the society that it administrates. It is not that you make 'too much' money, it is that you share 'too little' of it with the society that you are part of. You can always decide to share money on purpose, to support whatever part of the society you want: cure for cancer, poverty, scientific advancement, art, etc. Money is not a personal propriety, it is a social invention, so it is right that the society (administrated by a government) takes its share back -- if you don't decide, freely, out of your kindness, generosity, and love for people, to invest enough in the society, in whatever segment of it you like.


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 6, 2008)

madbulk @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> I don't know who you think all these wealthy do nothings are. I've known lots of wealthy people. Only one do-nothing among em. The overgeneralization is crazy.


Absolutely. But the _children_ of wealthy people are another story. I've seen lots of ugly stuff, including a friend who was so pissed he actually complained out loud about his dead aunt giving away so much of "his" inheritance to a hospital in Israel.

To be clear, I'm not saying we need to abolish inheritances or make laws against spoiling kids. I'm not even saying that we need to tax inheritances to kingdom come. It's just that when beneficieries(sp?) receive this huge gift, thanks to nothing more than mum and dad biting the big one and being born to a mum and dad who have some bucks, then they should get taxed just like anyone else does when they _work_ for or _invested_ their money. Jon gave excellent examples, by the way.

Also keep in mind, the parents are free to give as much money as they like to their children (or to me!) at any time. The kids will pay taxes on it (at least on any amount above $12,000 per donator per person.) If anything, at death, the tax is LOWER than if they had given it to Junior while they were alive. So it's not like there's some "penalty" for dying.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 6, 2008)

Communism and Socialism folks. It is Kays & aeneas. I don't use those words lightly. It truly is. Look them up. And I will fight to the end of my days against those socialistic principles. That is not freedom. And certainly not what this country was founded on. And it has no place in our future as a country. 

And I like how everyone seems to ignore my question of how they feel wealth is obtained in life. The reason probably being because they feel it is only obtained through luck and by no means of their own. Which is hogwash.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 6, 2008)

madbulk @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> I don't know who you think all these wealthy do nothings are. I've known lots of wealthy people. Only one do-nothing among em. The overgeneralization is crazy.


Maybe I was unclear. I don't think wealthy people are do-nothings. I think people who inherit large sums of money didn't earn it. It's a windfall. They didn't work for it. They were just lucky enough to be in a position to benefit.

A tax policy that rewards luck, rather than work, makes no sense.

BTW, entrepreneurs (as compared to Wall Street investors) are extremely important to society. Give tax credits and other support to small entrepreneurs, not to people who just happened to sit in the front row at a well-heeled funeral.


----------



## madbulk (Feb 6, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Feb 06 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who you think all these wealthy do nothings are. I've known lots of wealthy people. Only one do-nothing among em. The overgeneralization is crazy.
> ...



My one do-nothing was a child of a wealthy person. But his other siblings were all high achievers. So, I don't know if it's another story. I think it's more likely just typical family dynamics, the effects thereof, magnified by the wealth effect. So, your n'er do well is now a super rich, extra deplorable n'er do well. 
Still I think these are the exceptions.


----------



## madbulk (Feb 6, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Feb 06 said:
> 
> 
> > A tax policy that rewards luck, rather than work, makes no sense.



Sounds reasonable, but the phrasing is a product of your position. As is probably true of us all.

This ain't about rewarding luck, it's about penalizing success! 

And when my child inherits whatever I leave to him, it will have been my choice to leave it, not-yet-spent for his benefit or that of my grandchildren. To take that from me is penalizing me more than him. By the time he gets it, I hope and expect he will not care.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> ...they feel it is only obtained through luck and by no means of their own. Which is hogwash.


Wealth earned through work or entrepreneurship has little to do with luck (though luck always plays its role.) Wealth earned in the stock market has a higher luck component. Being born to wealthy parents is pure luck. Nobody can plan or work toward that.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 6, 2008)

A social outcast learns that he will inherit fifty million bucks from his father, who has two years to live. The outcast goes to a bar and encounters the most beautiful woman he has ever seen. He tells her that she should marry him because in two years he will inherit a small fortune from his dad. The woman says she will consider it, takes his business card and leaves.

Two days later that woman is his mother-in-law.

Okay. Inheriting money isn't always a matter of luck. 

Support tax breaks for oppressed golddiggers!


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 6, 2008)

Again...you guys are wearing a lot of envy on those sleeves. And it is not healthy. Really. Envy is a weight that keeps one down.

WHO CARES WHERE SOMEONE'S MONEY COMES FROM? 

It is what they do with it that is a testament to their character. And that is what you all are having a problem with...not with the money. So...they squander it on cars and lavish trips. Guess what?...you don't have to be their friend and it was their free right to do what they please with it. 

Taxes by definition are not the Gov't's money. It is the people's money. The individuals money. 99.5% of the time earned through a lifetime of hard work and smart business decisions and practices. 

Everyone here has the same potential to make it. Everyone's path to make it will be different. And no one can tell me that are not in pursuit of making more for whatever reason...noble or not.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> Taxes by definition are not the Gov't's money. It is the people's money.


I thought that in any country claiming to be democratic, government equals the people. If not - who else does government represent?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 6, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> There's wealth and there's obscene wealth. I only believe in taxing the latter. When Arnold Blackeggs makes $650,000 in an afternoon for saying "f#@k you" while a teacher makes that in a career, somehow there's an imbalance.



Arnold Blackeggs??? :lol: 

I still hold to my philisophical 33% rule. But I agree that in that situation there is an inbalance. Especially that our teachers in general should be making at least double of what they are now across the board. It is an investment in our future to attract good people to those jobs. 

But talking about obscene wealth...and comparing it to the death tax tax level, either where it is now or where it will be in a couple years...those two are not in the same ball park. Many middle class Americans will easily hit those limits in the sunset of their years. So we are no longer talking about oscenely wealthy people any more.

Many of those people are not obscenely wealthy. Not by any stretch.

Ok...random brainstorm...Liberals are always talking about leveling the playing field. Would you support some sort of index that determines different estate tax levels for different parts of the country (perhaps by zip code) depending on the cost of livò'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡	'€   n‡
'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡ '€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡'€   n‡ '€   n‡!'€   n‡"'€   n‡#'€


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 6, 2008)

> Some social services have a very important place in our country! Pure socialism doesn't, and obviously a couple of experiments have proven that it doesn't work.




That's just isn't true. It could work really well but the capitalist that are ruling this world will make sure it doesn't. Many of the socialist countries were found by the same international bankers that founded capitalist country. They can make it work or not, all the need to do is shorten the supply of money. Beside it's easy to say capitalist works when you can print money out of thin air. Also, the form of capitalism we have today is more like fascist capitalism. We're quickly loosing our rights and liberty aren't we? I think we're about to find out the real ugly side of capitalism. 

And what about the ugly side of capitalism we're witnessing right now. The secret wars of the CIA have killed 6 millions just so the US can plunder the world resources for cheap and use/transform these resources and make a huge profit out of it. For our system to work we support dictators, we overthrow democratically elected government like Iran for oil. I guess capitalism work but 2/3 of the world is not invited.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 6, 2008)

In the words of a British friend....

Brilliant!

:wink:

Edit: The photo that is.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Feb 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 6, 2008)

Question, Fernando: why are capitalists ruling the world rather than socialists?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 6, 2008)

Scott Rogers, posting that picture was a low blow. I never read Marx, I am neither socialist nor communist, and there was nothing socialist or communist in my post, only facts present in any civilized society based on a capitalist economical system.



Brian Ralston @ Wed 06 Feb said:


> Communism and Socialism folks. It is Kays & aeneas. I don't use those words lightly. It truly is. Look them up. And I will fight to the end of my days against those socialistic principles.


Actually, IMO, you have used those words extremely lightly. Labeling people may be reassuring for you, but you got it wrong about me -- I have nothing to do at all with communism and socialism. Feel free to fight them, but you don't need to fight me, because my belief seems to be similar to yours: that capitalism is the most healthy economical system. Also, in my post I have described what happens in a democratic society based on a capitalist economy. Let's just look, cold minded, at the facts:

First, I was responding to this statement: 
_But still the principle of the government deciding, "ok...you make too much money. We can come in and take it now...we have decided that you can do fine with half." is simply disgusing to me. It is a play from the books of socialism and communism at its worst._

To my understanding, you seemed to say that THE PRINCIPLE of taxation is 'disgusting'. Afterwards, you have made your point clearer by saying that you are not against taxation, it's just that anything above 33% starts to get your "negative attention". So, as I gather now, it was not THE PRINCIPLE that was wrong, disgusting, but THE PERCENT of the taxation. Now, please take a look at what I was actually saying: _"taxing it's a good social principle (the *percentages* are always subject to debate and change, but the principle is good)."_ 

So, are we in agreement about taxing being a GOOD PRINCIPLE? I think the best prove is that this principle works well in all democratic societies based on capitalist economy. I can hardly imagine that a society would function better in the lack of taxation. It is NOT "a play from the books of socialism and communism at its worst". So, taxation is good, as principle, right? As for the percentage, neither you nor I are holding all the data to argue about where the lines should be drawn, so I have no reason to argue against your maximum 33%. (actually, it looks to me like a fair maximal taxation for my annual earnings...) 

It's only what each one of us call 'low' taxation. It's semantics. Also, it's not-holding-all-the-data. That's why people need a government -- to arbitrate, to keep the balance right, to distribute the wealth, to advance the society in several directions: science, health, education, infra-structure, security, and all the other public matters that the government takes care of. There is nothing socialist or communist to it. It is 'only' social, not socialist. It is about 'common' benefit, which is far from communism. Completely different things.

AFAIK, in socialist and communist societies, taxes are very low, because all payments (prices included) are artificial, and are kept very low -- so that those bastards can keep their power over impoverished individuals that they treat as cattle. Those are unhealthy, filthy economies, so it's not worth talking about them. Just don't associate me with that abhorrent way of thinking. 

It was perhaps my take on money that annoyed you. That was only my personal belief, my personal way of looking at money, and I assure you that it doesn't have anything to do with socialism and communism (which I loath probably at least as much as you do). It's just that, after long and serious pondering about it, I have reached the conclusion that, individuals simply can't own money. :shock: They are only given that illusion, so they feel better. Money, actually, is a social invention. If you think of it carefully, you will probably see my point, that each of us really don't own any money, we only think we do.  What you (*you*) hold in your bank account and in your pockets are some sort of 'units' that reflect the degree of your right to buy -- a kind of a 'score', that's all you got (I am not talking properties here, only money). That right-to-buy was granted by the society. As an individual, you are building your wealth within the society, where money is just a convention, a social one. You don't own them. The society owns them. The society lets you use them, grants you the right to spend its (the society's) money for your own purposes. But you have to pay for this right. So you pay for this right by the means of taxes: whatever surpasses a certain gain in money, is subject to taxation. That is a social/economical law that everybody, everywhere in the civilized world, accepts. You accept it too -- except that you think that, in your country, the bar is set too low and the taxation too high. Which brings me back to my main point: taxation is good in principle, but it should be adjusted. You want it lowered? You have one tool to achieve that: your vote. Vote for those who promise to lower taxation. 



> That is not freedom. And certainly not what this country was founded on. And it has no place in our future as a country.


I doubt that your country was founded on strictly individualist, anti-social principles. ("We, the people...") Also, taxation doesn't take your freedom away. You have the right to get as rich as possible (but not richer than that :wink: ). By the American law, you don't have the right to refuse to pay taxes from your money earnings. I don't want to sound patronizing, but, with freedom, there comes responsibility. You are not free in a desert. You are free in a society. Even more, you are free in a PROSPEROUS society. The taxes are part of that prosperity. You surely have to pay for your own society's advancement -- that's normal (from 'norms', i.e. social norms), that's moral (from 'mor' = custom, i.e. social custom), and, ultimately, thats' a working social/economical law. I think taxation has an important place in your "future as a country". I think you (personally, this time) should be proud for being able to make a good living AND to pay more than all those losers out there -- yes, you should be proud, because you are paying for the advancement of your American society, of your country. [insert fanfare: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/natlib/ihas/service/ssbanner/100010509/100010509.mp3]


----------



## Scott Rogers (Feb 6, 2008)

..........


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> Anyway, I'm not going to try and reason with you or anyone else. Life is too short. I'm outta here.


Yes, for some, life is too short for reasoning -- so, they conserve their mental effort by just making use of some clichés, some preconceived, fast-food thoughts: that's communist, that's fascist, that's capitalist. Or, better: first shoot, then ask. Or, best: why bother asking? just shoot! -- quickly stick labels on individuals and then move on fast.

That truly is a sound and safe mentality: when not reasoning, life gets longer, because time passes faster.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> Question, Fernando: why are capitalists ruling the world rather than socialists?



The world is ruled by international bankers, and of course they are capitalist. The Federal reserves is a private bank Nick. How much sovereignty does a country has when it does not even control it's money? You'd be probably feeling powerless if you had to give your paycheck to a higher force when you come back from work and have him manage you salary. Then you would have to borrow back your money at interest. Actually it's worse than that as the money the federal reserves lend to the government is not backed up by anything and it's begin printed out of thin air. 

Anyway, i repeat my question: How much sovereignty does a country has when it does not even control it's money?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> why are capitalists ruling the world rather than socialists?


Neither of them do rule anything, that's a myth. Some people like to believe they got 'power' -- and the others don't bother. So, 'the world' just let those guys be, and live their belief that they are 'powerful'. It's good to leave the capitalists manage the economy, they are good at that, actually they're the best at that. So, let them nurture the illusion that they are also 'ruling' the world, if that makes them happier.  

'The world' is an abstraction that doesn't need to be ruled. The societies are entities that are ruled by their own set of customs and rules, and not by the economy or by 'powerful' (or 'rich') people. What really matters is the individual. The individual is free. That's the good news. That's all that really counts. The rest is just counting units and dreaming about having 'power'.



Fernando Warez @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> Anyway, i repeat my question: How much sovereignty does a country has when it does not even control it's money?


I don't think that a country's sovereignty depends on its control over those units called money. Money is an internal business, while sovereignty is an external one. There are plenty of poor yet sovereign countries, which makes me think that sovereignty is not a function of money. But I have another question: do you think that the owners of the federal reserve PRIVATE bank can take THEIR money to Monte Carlo and just have some fun? :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2008)

Scott - I suspect that the histories of the Soviet empire and China would have been almost identical if Karl Marx hadn't lived.

Fernando, let me now take a different tack: why are you convinced the world is ruled the Gnomes of Zurich? I think it's ruled (or at least dominated) by nations with armies and military bases all over the place...such as, oh, the US.

Aeneas, see my last sentence. The world is ruled by capitalist countries, and the point I was trying to lead Fernando to is that capitalist systems produce more than socialist ones. There's no mystery why that is: people work for money, and if they don't have to work then they won't.

Now I'm sounding like Brian, but I'm talking about the extreme - a totally socialist economy, not a largely capitalist one with some socialized programs.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 7, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Wed Feb 06 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Wed Feb 06 said:
> 
> 
> > > Some social services have a very important place in our country! Pure socialism doesn't, and obviously a couple of experiments have proven that it doesn't work.
> ...



I don't mean to insult Americans by saying this but America has been fed capitalist PR/propaganda by the ''privately'' own corporate media for a long time now. It is foolish to think these ''private'' entrepreneurs would defend socialistic values. So basically the power of information is in the hands of a few ridiculously rich men who will not support socialistic values because they know that would eventually means paying more taxes, and they love privatization because it made them rich. Instead they repeat the free market mantra and other ideas like free trade and freedom, which is quiet funny when you consider the oil industry, for example, is a cartel etc.. And how the US and the Brits has overthrow democratically elected government because they didn't want to privatize their oil or other various resources. And of course the medias don't tell you about that. 

You're just repeating their message Scott and without realizing it.

P.S. The same can be said for most capitalist country BTW.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 7, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Scott Rogers @ Wed Feb 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando Warez @ Wed Feb 06 said:
> ...



I guess your arguments explain why so many Americans choose to live in other countries after they travel and so few people from other countries choose to come and live in the U.S.

Oh, wait a minute, it is the opposite isn't it? I guess they are just getting their info from the wrong people. Please set up a website to set them straight immediately.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 7, 2008)

> Fernando, let me now take a different tack: why are you convinced the world is ruled the Gnomes of Zurich? I think it's ruled (or at least dominated) by nations with armies and military bases all over the place...such as, oh, the US.



Yes but who control these countries? Those who control the money have far more power that your leaders. 



> The world is ruled by capitalist countries, and the point I was trying to lead Fernando to is that capitalist systems produce more than socialist ones. There's no mystery why that is: people work for money, and if they don't have to work then they won't.



I'm afraid it's not that simple. Again, it's easy to produce more money when you can print it out of thin air. And all these bankers have to do is print less in socialist country and they can create the illusion that capitalism works better. Then it becomes 
really hard to defend a socialist approach because people will say: You see, they tried it and it doesn't work. I'm starting to think it was a set up. And it make sense because as far as I'm concern these international bankers control the central bank of virtually every nation on hearth. Countries left that do not have a central bank control by them are Libya, Iran, Syria and north Corey. That's right! All the rogue nations. A strange hazard to say the least. Oh i forgot, Iran ..before the war.

And yes having military bases around the world to impose you politics on others helps a lot. Hitler agreed with that too. But again, how do you pay for these wars and military bases. Take the war in Iraq, the government went to the federal reserve and borrowed billions for the war. And what did the bank do? They made an entry in a book and printed more money out of nothing with nothing to back it up. It's easy to build an army like that. Notice that these bankers are cheap as hell as they don't borrow their own money but print more(paper) and expect to be paid with interest. It's fraud if you ask me.

And again, if you use your army to control resources/government around the globe to make sure these resources are delivered to your country only and at a cheap price of course you will produce more wealth. But how many people did you have to kill to do that? And how is that different from fascism or any kind of totalitarian regime? I guess my point is you're note creating more wealth only because you're a capitalist country and you work more but because you impose you will on others and get a better deal than others.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> > Fernando, let me now take a different tack: why are you convinced the world is ruled the Gnomes of Zurich? I think it's ruled (or at least dominated) by nations with armies and military bases all over the place...such as, oh, the US.
> 
> 
> Yes but who control these countries? Those who control the money have far more power that your leaders.


And it's not even them money-guys, but their wives. o=<

edit - 


Fernando Warez @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> Again, it's easy to produce more money when you can print it out of thin air.
> And again, if you use your army to control resources/government around the globe
> Hitler agreed with that
> I'm starting to think it was a set up.


Fernando, why don't you print your own money out of thin air and then pay an army to occupy the US of A? I think Hitler would agree. Oh, bummer - I forgot about the set up... what a drag...

Ah well. I think someone already mentioned Godwin’s Law...


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 7, 2008)

> I guess your arguments explain why so many Americans choose to live in other countries after they travel and so few people from other countries choose to come and live in the U.S.
> 
> Oh, wait a minute, it is the opposite isn't it? I guess they are just getting their info from the wrong people. Please set up a website to set them straight immediately.



Let me guess, you got that for this little prick Tukcer on msn?

Maybe you haven't hear but many American moved to Canada after Bush stole the election and many more are thinking about it. 

Beside I'm not going to argue that kind of think. My country is better because it has more money an more business opportunities.. There is more to life than economy and money and feel many American fail to understand that. And i blame the media for that as well. Always talking about economy as it's all that matters. 

Anyway, what you said means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2008)

And here's yet another tack, Fernando: the reason capitalistic countries produce more than socialist ones is that people are motivated by money. It has nothing to do with bankers not printing money in socialist countries to prove a point.

Of course there's more to life than money and business opportunities - unless you're living in total poverty, in which case they're everything.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 7, 2008)

aeneas @ Thu Feb 07 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Thu 07 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > > Fernando, let me now take a different tack: why are you convinced the world is ruled the Gnomes of Zurich? I think it's ruled (or at least dominated) by nations with armies and military bases all over the place...such as, oh, the US.
> ...



:lol: ....

I'll try to come back and debate you post later aeneas. :wink: ..Not this one obviously.

But let me explain my views to you guys. I believe in both socialisms and capitalism and a mix of both is fine by me. But what i would really like to go back to first is capitalism before the laws concerning corporations were changed. That i would like to see. I'd be fine in a socialist country as well or as i said, a mix of both. But what i really don't like is , and I'm not sure how to call it so I'll do my best, is this corporate fascist capitalism that we have today. These corporations are way to powerful and they are a threat to democracy as far as I'm concern. I frankly believe it doesn't matter who you vote for anymore cause it's ''their'' policies that will be implemented in the end anyway. ..Unless you're a US citizens and you vote for Ron Paul or Kuthcinni orGravel. :wink:


----------



## Fernando Warez (Feb 7, 2008)

> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > And here's yet another tack, Fernando: the reason capitalistic countries produce more than socialist ones is that people are motivated by money. It has nothing to do with bankers not printing money in socialist countries to prove a point.
> ...



And rich country can create extreme poverty in already poor countries. See the book Confession of an economic hit man and the shit the world bank is doing in these country. And their motivation is always the resources.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 7, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu 07 Feb said:


> What are you talking about big corps. only having power if I allow it? They wield influence with campaign contributions aka bribes.


I see your point, you are right, of course. How can I deny the obvious? Now, try to see a bit of my perspective, there might be some truth to it as well...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 7, 2008)

Well sure it's good not to support businesses you feel are immoral - I won't have anything to do with Faux News or have an account on MySpace, for a blatant example - but unfortunately it's almost impossible to live in the modern world and spend completely cleanly. Plus the branches are so intertwined it's pretty much hopeless.


----------

