|
On August 25 2011 03:06 Peterblue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 17:15 liepzig wrote:
While the rest of the world is busy avoiding a new global recession, America is busy arguing about abortions and evolution.
Good job! As I said, they're the Jersey Shore of politics. In Canada our politics is literally focused on actually useful stuff(because there is very little interesting happening), but in the US it's focused on the people in politics, and their opinions... it's a pretty shitty way to run the biggest country in the world.
And your people vote for harper? Must be quite some craziness going on there then...
|
On August 25 2011 04:43 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 03:06 Peterblue wrote:On August 24 2011 17:15 liepzig wrote:
While the rest of the world is busy avoiding a new global recession, America is busy arguing about abortions and evolution.
Good job! As I said, they're the Jersey Shore of politics. In Canada our politics is literally focused on actually useful stuff(because there is very little interesting happening), but in the US it's focused on the people in politics, and their opinions... it's a pretty shitty way to run the biggest country in the world. And your people vote for harper? Must be quite some craziness going on there then...
There are some good reasons to vote for Harper. Personally I disagree with his social policies and his stance on the military, but realistically he does have some good views/policies on finance. Unfortunately I find that those aren't better than the alternatives to make up for my disagreements with his other policies so I almost always vote against him(either Liberal or NDP). Unfortunately for Canada our left wing/Liberal vote is split between 3 parties(Green/NDP/Liberal), although realistically it's split between NDP/Liberal, whereas the Conservatives are the only party on the right side of the spectrum for Canadian politics, which means they control all of the votes from their section of the spectrum and on.
But even as a Liberal I can honestly say that I would strongly consider voting for Harper if his social policies were more Liberal and if he wouldn't waste so much money on our military presence.
|
On August 24 2011 12:45 synapse wrote:
If TL.net wants Obama to win, then TL.net will want Bachmann to win the Republican nomination. EZ victory for Obama.
What has Obama done to deserve a second term? I'm an outsider to American politics but it seems like on many issues Obama isn't all that different from the previous guy. I can't think of anything that, if I were American, would make me say "Yeah, he did THAT last time and that really showed he's awesome so we want to elect him again".
Rephrased: Why is Obama so good that you would want to have someone like "Vote for Me and Have Corndogs While Listening to Randy Travis" Bachmann running for president? 
|
On August 25 2011 05:39 Longsh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 12:45 synapse wrote:
If TL.net wants Obama to win, then TL.net will want Bachmann to win the Republican nomination. EZ victory for Obama. What has Obama done to deserve a second term? I'm an outsider to American politics but it seems like on many issues Obama isn't all that different from the previous guy. I can't think of anything that, if I were American, would make me say "Yeah, he did THAT last time and that really showed he's awesome so we want to elect him again". Rephrased: Why is Obama so good that you would want to have someone like "Vote for Me and Have Corndogs While Listening to Randy Travis" Bachmann running for president?
I think most, myself included, are simply forgiving of the fact that while he promised a lot of changes, he still wound up inheriting a presidency at a fucking terrible economic state and there was very little he could have done better to improve the situation beyond the current state. Thus, they're willing to give him a second shot.
On top of that...look at the alternatives...
Bachmann winning the Republican nomination would be an instant victory for Obama. America became batshit terrified of the idea of the last crazy-ass middle-aged loon taking the vice-presidency. Obama would have to shoot a puppy in the face and take a dump on the American flag to lose a battle with Bachmann.
|
On August 25 2011 05:39 Longsh0t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2011 12:45 synapse wrote:
If TL.net wants Obama to win, then TL.net will want Bachmann to win the Republican nomination. EZ victory for Obama. What has Obama done to deserve a second term? I'm an outsider to American politics but it seems like on many issues Obama isn't all that different from the previous guy. I can't think of anything that, if I were American, would make me say "Yeah, he did THAT last time and that really showed he's awesome so we want to elect him again". Rephrased: Why is Obama so good that you would want to have someone like "Vote for Me and Have Corndogs While Listening to Randy Travis" Bachmann running for president?
Because Republicans are worse than him and Democrats are unlikely to field anyone else would be my guess. Frankly Obama's record is rather bad compared to even low expectations, but because of the two-party deadlock in US I would vote for him anyway if I was American.
|
On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme.
Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction.
He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo.
I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain.
|
|
|
On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain.
This is a good post.
I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution.
I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions.
|
On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions.
First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them.
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
|
On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
I would suggest rereading what he wrote.
He specifically said he wasn't addressing specifically the tax code but rather the mentality that "oh, it's the fault of the super rich not paying enough" vs "damn poor people mooching off government welfare" divides people, and politicians use that segmentation to appeal to specific crowds. Which is relevant to your second attack on him, as he's saying that class warfare is rampant and bad - which is 100% relevant to Marxism. He never said anything about denouncing the wealth gap making you Marxist.
|
On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them.
Right, which is why I very specifically stated in the next paragraph "I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code." Do you have trouble reading?
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Also, this is not a strawman argument. A huge number of people do see the world in this Marxist mentality, which is why they focus so much on how much the rich should be paying. Everyone is going to disagree on what is a "fair" amount to tax. Using hyperbole about "tax breaks" seems pointless to me. I could just as easily use hyperbole and say you want to "raise taxes on the rich." The difference is merely the timeframe we are using. Taxes go up and they go down, calling it a "tax break" means we already have an established level at which the rich SHOULD be getting taxed, which is the real strawman here.
And yes, denouncing wealth disparity is a distinctly Marxist mentality. It's only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't give a damn about the disparity between people, I only care about the standard of living of the poorest in our nation. If the poor are housed and fed and have educational opportunities, etc, then why should I care how much more Warren Buffett is making? I could only care if I equate economic equality with justice.
|
On August 25 2011 06:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Right, which is why I very specifically stated in the next paragraph "I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code." Do you have trouble reading? Show nested quote +
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Also, this is not a strawman argument. A huge number of people do see the world in this Marxist mentality, which is why they focus so much on how much the rich should be paying. Everyone is going to disagree on what is a "fair" amount to tax. Using hyperbole about "tax breaks" seems pointless to me. I could just as easily use hyperbole and say you want to "raise taxes on the rich." The difference is merely the timeframe we are using. Taxes go up and they go down, calling it a "tax break" means we already have an established level at which the rich SHOULD be getting taxed, which is the real strawman here. And yes, denouncing wealth disparity is a distinctly Marxist mentality. It's only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't give a damn about the disparity between people, I only care about the standard of living of the poorest in our nation. If the poor are housed and fed and have educational opportunities, etc, then why should I care how much more Warren Buffett is making? I could only care if I equate economic equality with justice.
No one should pay any taxes, it's all theft. fuck the communists biulding my roads, build them with your own money red scum.
Your view that people are isolated from each other, and that a massive disparity isn't a problem is pretty shallow. You would see it different if you would not be a middle class citizen but some poor black from south central la, but let me guess, it's his own fault that his poor and discriminated, right? michael jackson also was able to become white, so why can't every black do it?
|
On August 25 2011 06:52 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Right, which is why I very specifically stated in the next paragraph "I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code." Do you have trouble reading?
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Also, this is not a strawman argument. A huge number of people do see the world in this Marxist mentality, which is why they focus so much on how much the rich should be paying. Everyone is going to disagree on what is a "fair" amount to tax. Using hyperbole about "tax breaks" seems pointless to me. I could just as easily use hyperbole and say you want to "raise taxes on the rich." The difference is merely the timeframe we are using. Taxes go up and they go down, calling it a "tax break" means we already have an established level at which the rich SHOULD be getting taxed, which is the real strawman here. And yes, denouncing wealth disparity is a distinctly Marxist mentality. It's only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't give a damn about the disparity between people, I only care about the standard of living of the poorest in our nation. If the poor are housed and fed and have educational opportunities, etc, then why should I care how much more Warren Buffett is making? I could only care if I equate economic equality with justice. No one should pay any taxes, it's all theft. fuck the communists biulding my roads, build them with your own money red scum. Your view that people are isolated from each other, and that a massive disparity isn't a problem is pretty shallow.
How in the world did you come to this conclusion?
|
On August 25 2011 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I would suggest rereading what he wrote. He specifically said he wasn't addressing specifically the tax code but rather the mentality that "oh, it's the fault of the super rich not paying enough" vs "damn poor people mooching off government welfare" divides people, and politicians use that segmentation to appeal to specific crowds. Which is relevant to your second attack on him, as he's saying that class warfare is rampant and bad - which is 100% relevant to Marxism. He never said anything about denouncing the wealth gap making you Marxist.
I would suggest rereading what he wrote (and who he was replying to) and what I wrote. It's pretty obvious that he is between the lines saying that there should not be so much focus on the amount of taxes paid by the top 2%. The thing is... there should be, and it has nothing to do with Marxism/class warfare. I'm all for saying "there should be no "us vs them" mentality". The problem is that this is often used to muddle the waters and indirectly argue that the tax breaks given to the wealthy shouldn't be revoked. I'm curious to see if he's ready to admit that they should.
edit: yep, his reply clearly shows that I was right in my interpretation of his post.
|
On August 25 2011 06:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Right, which is why I very specifically stated in the next paragraph "I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code." Do you have trouble reading?
I don't, thanks. Why exactly did you mention "equality under the law" again?
On August 25 2011 06:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Also, this is not a strawman argument. A huge number of people do see the world in this Marxist mentality, which is why they focus so much on how much the rich should be paying. Everyone is going to disagree on what is a "fair" amount to tax. Using hyperbole about "tax breaks" seems pointless to me. I could just as easily use hyperbole and say you want to "raise taxes on the rich." The difference is merely the timeframe we are using. Taxes go up and they go down, calling it a "tax break" means we already have an established level at which the rich SHOULD be getting taxed, which is the real strawman here. And yes, denouncing wealth disparity is a distinctly Marxist mentality. It's only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't give a damn about the disparity between people, I only care about the standard of living of the poorest in our nation. If the poor are housed and fed and have educational opportunities, etc, then why should I care how much more Warren Buffett is making? I could only care if I equate economic equality with justice.
Thanks for proving me right in my interpretation of your post, proving FabledIntegral's interpretation wrong in the process.
No, denouncing wealth disparity cannot be reduced to Marxism. No, it's not only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't, yet I still denounce disparity. You're wrong, face it. Also, you do not seem to understand what a strawman is, judging by your use of the word in your first paragraph.
|
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking?
Fact is, the rich and the huge corporations are in possession of most of the wealth of the world... the world needs to wake up and make things fair. They don't have this just because "they work harder". They have these possession because of luck, being born in the correct family, and abuse of a lot of humans and the earth.
Think I'm just spreading nonsense? Nope!
The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.
The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.
(I should add this is from the year 2000 and things obviously shifted a lot to the rich, like they always keep doing until we do something about it. Furthermore, this talks about the top 2%, the top 1% or 0.1% actually owns a majority of what is talked about here.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6211250.stm
Reliable source even, not some vague website!
|
On August 25 2011 06:52 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Right, which is why I very specifically stated in the next paragraph "I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code." Do you have trouble reading?
Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Also, this is not a strawman argument. A huge number of people do see the world in this Marxist mentality, which is why they focus so much on how much the rich should be paying. Everyone is going to disagree on what is a "fair" amount to tax. Using hyperbole about "tax breaks" seems pointless to me. I could just as easily use hyperbole and say you want to "raise taxes on the rich." The difference is merely the timeframe we are using. Taxes go up and they go down, calling it a "tax break" means we already have an established level at which the rich SHOULD be getting taxed, which is the real strawman here. And yes, denouncing wealth disparity is a distinctly Marxist mentality. It's only possible to denounce disparity if you see the world in a "bourgeois vs. proletariat" mentality. I don't give a damn about the disparity between people, I only care about the standard of living of the poorest in our nation. If the poor are housed and fed and have educational opportunities, etc, then why should I care how much more Warren Buffett is making? I could only care if I equate economic equality with justice. No one should pay any taxes, it's all theft. fuck the communists biulding my roads, build them with your own money red scum. Your view that people are isolated from each other, and that a massive disparity isn't a problem is pretty shallow. You would see it different if you would not be a middle class citizen but some poor black from south central la, but let me guess, it's his own fault that his poor and discriminated, right? michael jackson also was able to become white, so why can't every black do it?
This wasn't the argument that was being made. He was just arguing against the division we have, where republicans say "ooh, you guys are all going after the good big business" where the democrats say "you are picking on the poor man thrown out by society"
To the above, are you suggesting the economy is zero sum?
|
its obv going to be Perry vs Obama. But obama is going to win hands down.
|
On August 25 2011 07:01 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2011 06:48 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 25 2011 06:35 kwizach wrote:On August 25 2011 06:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On August 25 2011 05:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Extreme doesn't mean he's bad. I would personally vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a step in the right direction, but too extreme. He wouldn't be able to change everything he wanted to, but would make small steps in that direction. He's not necessarily pro-top 2%. He's pro "keep what you earn, don't redistribute wealth" philosophy. He would be against tax cuts for any specific demographic, including the super wealthy, etc, but rather have things apply similarly to everyone. Which is something I agree with. If you babysit for your neighbor and get $40 for the night, why is the government entitled to that money? It's part necessity, but should be kept to the bare minimum imo. I'm a "moderate" libertarian, which sounds like an oxymoron, but it's pretty easy to explain. This is a good post. I think a clear distinction to be made here, is that many people don't view the world from a Marxist "class warfare" mentality. We don't see the world as 2% vs. other 98%, we think the government should treat each citizen in a relatively equal way. Equality under the law is one of the primary goals of our constitution. I'm not arguing against a progressive tax code, I think it makes a lot of sense. What I'm arguing against is a worldview of "us vs. them," based upon envy or resentment. The attitudes of victimization or hatred really destroys a lot of potential in people, imo. Unfortunately, many politicians feed off of these emotions. First of all, equality under the law has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about, namely the tax code. Having different tax rates based on income is _unrelated_ to equality under the law. Don't throw expressions around if you don't understand them. Second, your strawman is laughable. Since when can denouncing an increase in wealth disparity be reduced to Marxism? Since when can questioning the usefulness of tax breaks for the wealthiest be reduced to "class warfare"? It's not a question of "us vs them", it's a question of looking at FACTS and realizing it's a terrible policy to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I would suggest rereading what he wrote. He specifically said he wasn't addressing specifically the tax code but rather the mentality that "oh, it's the fault of the super rich not paying enough" vs "damn poor people mooching off government welfare" divides people, and politicians use that segmentation to appeal to specific crowds. Which is relevant to your second attack on him, as he's saying that class warfare is rampant and bad - which is 100% relevant to Marxism. He never said anything about denouncing the wealth gap making you Marxist. I would suggest rereading what he wrote (and who he was replying to) and what I wrote. It's pretty obvious that he is between the lines saying that there should not be so much focus on the amount of taxes paid by the top 2%. The thing is... there should be, and it has nothing to do with Marxism/class warfare. I'm all for saying "there should be no "us vs them" mentality". The problem is that this is often used to muddle the waters and indirectly argue that the tax breaks given to the wealthy shouldn't be revoked. I'm curious to see if he's ready to admit that they should.
So now you're backpedaling and going off assumption. How can you accuse him of a strawman while simultaneously be "reading between the lines." He already said he agreed with the way the tax code works - it's very possible he might disagree with the extent/disparity, but unlike you, I'm not making assumptions on what he thinks. And yes, wealth redistribution is in every which way related to class warfare, I'm waiting on your argument on how it isn't related, since you seem to be challenging this idea.
I fully agree with him that as long as the bottom people are living non-impoverished lives and are able to receive proper education then the wealth gap is not a large concern whatsoever. Of course this is not necessarily the case, but he was doing nothing more than stating his mentality concerning the matter. And it's all relative on tax breaks. You can twist things however you want to make them sound different. If the tax rate for $100,000+ earned was 95% and below $100,000 earned was at 5%, and you suddenly implemented a "tax break" for all income earned above $100,000 to be at 85% instead of 95%, it's a completely different situation. In the end, they're still being taxed substantially more than the rest. And please don't bring in tax loopholes etc. because we're talking how things "should" be ideally, not how they are.
On August 25 2011 07:01 kwizach wrote:
edit: yep, his reply clearly shows that I was right in my interpretation of his post.
lol, not at all, in fact, I read it basically as him calmly stating how wrong you were.
|
On August 25 2011 07:06 H0i wrote:
How is it relevant what kind of label you stick on a way of thinking?
Because then you can denounce your opponent as marxist/ communist/ socialist/ whatever and don't have to answer his arguments because they are "obviously wrong because he's marxist/ communist/ socialist and because of that biased and not answer-worthy". It's an easy way out. Everyone understands that it's a problem if a real small percentage of the people own massivly large amounts of wealth and THEN don't even pay tax accordingly. If 5% own 60% of the wealth the obviously should bear the biggest amount of (private ->non corporate) taxes. No matter your view on the world.
The problem with "class warfare" (you americans use that term so often, without even really knowing what really is "class warfare") is that it's one way at the moment. "the rich" buy political power-> political power buys laws-> the laws let "the rich" pay less taxes-> which gives them more money to buy political power.
The dismantlement of unions (especially strong unions, who are willingly to fight back) is a real problem and one of the reasons why the world is so fucked. We need world-wide unions, and solidarity with third world countries. This would bring class-warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
