Oakland cops

I think the causes for the financial crisis are no longer very important. All I know is the the overall numbers sure have changed since Clinton stumbled out of office. As usual though I've yet to hear anything resembling a viable solution. The aspiring Republican Presidential candidates' strategies seem to range from attacking a three year president to giving even more money to the guys who aren't investing what they have now. How this converts into an incentive to create jobs eludes me completely. I think about the evils of government spending and I always conclude that the spending tends to put money into the pockets of taxpayers rather than leaving it in the hands of sophisticated investors with tax avoidance expertise and little, if any, social responsibility. My guess is that the protests will get worse before they subside. Kind of French revolutionesque really.
As for the big decision, ie; whom to vote for, I'll go with the devil I know who has forestalled a depression, killed key terrorists and shown at least a little compassion for the common man which I think, includes most of the guys on this board whether they realize it or not.
I have to chill now and I'm looking for my Iron Butterfly CD. A quick blast of Innagodadavida (sp) should do the trick and get me back into a hoops mode.
 
 
I think about the evils of government spending and I always conclude that the spending tends to put money into the pockets of taxpayers rather than leaving it in the hands of sophisticated investors with tax avoidance expertise and little, if any, social responsibility.
Click to expand...

Um, where do you think the government gets its money? Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, the government garners revenue through taxation. It doesn't " put money into the pockets of taxpayers" - it takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers: that's what government revenue comprises, money paid in tax, out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government doesn't produce anything of value: it doesn't sell things people eat or use or otherwise create wealth. The market does that. The government merely siphons off part of the wealth that the market creates - via taxation, from taxpayers.

The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of income taxes; that would be people with jobs; people who own companies and small businesses; and "sophisticated investors." Those people shovel their money into the rapacious maw of government which money the government then transfers into the pockets of people who don't pay taxes. That would be half the population of the US BTW, 50 percent of whom contribute 3 percent to the cost of society. See, those are the people who have "little if any social responsibility": the people who garner the benefits of the social contract without accepting responsibility for the cost of administering it.

If the point were to "put money in the pockets of taxpayers" you could skip the whole taxpaying/spending paradigm and just allow the people who earned the money in the first place to keep it in their pockets. Let me illustrate the flaw in the Bobre theory of economics via diagram, for the hard of thinking.

Money in the pockets of taxpayers ---tax---> Money in the pocket of Government ---Government spending---> Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure Dur

vs

Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure 2


So to recap: the government takes money from productive members of society, ie, wage earners, entrepeneurs, and sophisticated investors, and transfers it to unproductive members of society, ie, nonwage earners, unsophisticated investors, civil servants, union thugs, and ridiculous organizations like ACORN.

Thus endeth the civics lesson of the day.
 
 
I think about the evils of government spending and I always conclude that the spending tends to put money into the pockets of taxpayers rather than leaving it in the hands of sophisticated investors with tax avoidance expertise and little, if any, social responsibility.
Click to expand...

Um, where do you think the government gets its money? Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, the government garners revenue through taxation. It doesn't " put money into the pockets of taxpayers" - it takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers: that's what government revenue comprises, money paid in tax, out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government doesn't produce anything of value: it doesn't sell things people eat or use or otherwise create wealth. The market does that. The government merely siphons off part of the wealth that the market creates - via taxation, from taxpayers.

The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of income taxes; that would be people with jobs; people who own companies and small businesses; and "sophisticated investors." Those people shovel their money into the rapacious maw of government which money the government then transfers into the pockets of people who don't pay taxes. That would be half the population of the US BTW, 50 percent of whom contribute 3 percent to the cost of society. See, those are the people who have "little if any social responsibility": the people who garner the benefits of the social contract without accepting responsibility for the cost of administering it.

If the point were to "put money in the pockets of taxpayers" you could skip the whole taxpaying/spending paradigm and just allow the people who earned the money in the first place to keep it in their pockets. Let me illustrate the flaw in the Bobre theory of economics via diagram, for the hard of thinking.

Money in the pockets of taxpayers ---tax---> Money in the pocket of Government ---Government spending---> Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure Dur

vs

Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure 2


So to recap: the government takes money from productive members of society, ie, wage earners, entrepeneurs, and sophisticated investors, and transfers it to unproductive members of society, ie, nonwage earners, unsophisticated investors, civil servants, union thugs, and ridiculous organizations like ACORN.

Thus endeth the civics lesson of the day.
 
Click to expand...
 

You just get back from your hitler youth meeting?
 
I think about the evils of government spending and I always conclude that the spending tends to put money into the pockets of taxpayers rather than leaving it in the hands of sophisticated investors with tax avoidance expertise and little, if any, social responsibility.
Click to expand...

Um, where do you think the government gets its money? Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, the government garners revenue through taxation. It doesn't " put money into the pockets of taxpayers" - it takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers: that's what government revenue comprises, money paid in tax, out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government doesn't produce anything of value: it doesn't sell things people eat or use or otherwise create wealth. The market does that. The government merely siphons off part of the wealth that the market creates - via taxation, from taxpayers.

The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of income taxes; that would be people with jobs; people who own companies and small businesses; and "sophisticated investors." Those people shovel their money into the rapacious maw of government which money the government then transfers into the pockets of people who don't pay taxes. That would be half the population of the US BTW, 50 percent of whom contribute 3 percent to the cost of society. See, those are the people who have "little if any social responsibility": the people who garner the benefits of the social contract without accepting responsibility for the cost of administering it.

If the point were to "put money in the pockets of taxpayers" you could skip the whole taxpaying/spending paradigm and just allow the people who earned the money in the first place to keep it in their pockets. Let me illustrate the flaw in the Bobre theory of economics via diagram, for the hard of thinking.

Money in the pockets of taxpayers ---tax---> Money in the pocket of Government ---Government spending---> Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure Dur

vs

Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure 2


So to recap: the government takes money from productive members of society, ie, wage earners, entrepeneurs, and sophisticated investors, and transfers it to unproductive members of society, ie, nonwage earners, unsophisticated investors, civil servants, union thugs, and ridiculous organizations like ACORN.

Thus endeth the civics lesson of the day.
 
Click to expand...
 

You just get back from your hitler youth meeting?
Click to expand...
 

Actually that is more appropriate for OWS. They are the ones with the anti-semitic message.

Spoken like a true democrat. Attack the messenger instead of debating the message.

You can't defend your point so call someone "racist".
 
I think about the evils of government spending and I always conclude that the spending tends to put money into the pockets of taxpayers rather than leaving it in the hands of sophisticated investors with tax avoidance expertise and little, if any, social responsibility.
Click to expand...

Um, where do you think the government gets its money? Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, the government garners revenue through taxation. It doesn't " put money into the pockets of taxpayers" - it takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers: that's what government revenue comprises, money paid in tax, out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government doesn't produce anything of value: it doesn't sell things people eat or use or otherwise create wealth. The market does that. The government merely siphons off part of the wealth that the market creates - via taxation, from taxpayers.

The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of income taxes; that would be people with jobs; people who own companies and small businesses; and "sophisticated investors." Those people shovel their money into the rapacious maw of government which money the government then transfers into the pockets of people who don't pay taxes. That would be half the population of the US BTW, 50 percent of whom contribute 3 percent to the cost of society. See, those are the people who have "little if any social responsibility": the people who garner the benefits of the social contract without accepting responsibility for the cost of administering it.

If the point were to "put money in the pockets of taxpayers" you could skip the whole taxpaying/spending paradigm and just allow the people who earned the money in the first place to keep it in their pockets. Let me illustrate the flaw in the Bobre theory of economics via diagram, for the hard of thinking.

Money in the pockets of taxpayers ---tax---> Money in the pocket of Government ---Government spending---> Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure Dur

vs

Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure 2


So to recap: the government takes money from productive members of society, ie, wage earners, entrepeneurs, and sophisticated investors, and transfers it to unproductive members of society, ie, nonwage earners, unsophisticated investors, civil servants, union thugs, and ridiculous organizations like ACORN.

Thus endeth the civics lesson of the day.
 
Click to expand...
 

You just get back from your hitler youth meeting?
Click to expand...
 

Actually that is more appropriate for OWS. They are the ones with the anti-semitic message.

Spoken like a true democrat. Attack the messenger instead of debating the message.

You can't defend your point so call someone "racist".
Click to expand...
 

you went also?
 
I think about the evils of government spending and I always conclude that the spending tends to put money into the pockets of taxpayers rather than leaving it in the hands of sophisticated investors with tax avoidance expertise and little, if any, social responsibility.
Click to expand...

Um, where do you think the government gets its money? Perhaps you believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, the government garners revenue through taxation. It doesn't " put money into the pockets of taxpayers" - it takes money out of the pockets of taxpayers: that's what government revenue comprises, money paid in tax, out of the pockets of taxpayers. The government doesn't produce anything of value: it doesn't sell things people eat or use or otherwise create wealth. The market does that. The government merely siphons off part of the wealth that the market creates - via taxation, from taxpayers.

The top 10 percent of wage earners pay 70 percent of income taxes; that would be people with jobs; people who own companies and small businesses; and "sophisticated investors." Those people shovel their money into the rapacious maw of government which money the government then transfers into the pockets of people who don't pay taxes. That would be half the population of the US BTW, 50 percent of whom contribute 3 percent to the cost of society. See, those are the people who have "little if any social responsibility": the people who garner the benefits of the social contract without accepting responsibility for the cost of administering it.

If the point were to "put money in the pockets of taxpayers" you could skip the whole taxpaying/spending paradigm and just allow the people who earned the money in the first place to keep it in their pockets. Let me illustrate the flaw in the Bobre theory of economics via diagram, for the hard of thinking.

Money in the pockets of taxpayers ---tax---> Money in the pocket of Government ---Government spending---> Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure Dur

vs

Money in the pockets of taxpayers

Figure 2


So to recap: the government takes money from productive members of society, ie, wage earners, entrepeneurs, and sophisticated investors, and transfers it to unproductive members of society, ie, nonwage earners, unsophisticated investors, civil servants, union thugs, and ridiculous organizations like ACORN.

Thus endeth the civics lesson of the day.
 
Click to expand...
 

I hate to say it, but I think Fun is far more correct than people like to admit. Social spending from my tax dollars doesn't get paid back to me. It never will. It does go to the very large portion of society that doesn't pay into the coffers at all. Not a penny. I do believe that we have a moral obligation as Americans to help pick up other downtrodden Americans. I do believe in social programs. I just do believe everybody should be contributing to them if they are making money on the books, even if it is at a lower rate.

I don't agree that the problem here is with the 1% though. The problem is Government spending on wars, oil contracts, war contracts, lobby groups, special interests and the like. Occupy Wall Street IMO is misguided. Maybe "Occupy Pentagon" or "Occupy Politicians Homes" would be more appropriate outlet.

We can't fault the banker for being greedy. Bankers have always been that way. We can fault our government for stealing our money, legally of course. The reason our country is floundering is because our tax dollars were and are handed out by our leaders, like beers at a frat party. They handed it to bankers, big oil, the war machine and countless other avenues. We spend 4-6 trillion occupying Iraq. A country at did nothing to us and wasn't even a hotbed of "terror". We destabilized the region on top of it, overthrowing a dictator. All in the name of war contracts.

Forget occupy wall street. In my estimation, it's pissing in the wind, and at the wrong problem. Government is the problem. Both republicans and democrats. There are no "conservatives" any more, only spendthrifts on both sides, look to hook up their buddies and their own interests. The IRS just keeps making me pay into the real ponzi scheme our government has us buying into under the guise of Democracy. 
 
hitler
Click to expand...
 
The Nazis murdered 12 million people. My post concerned fiscal policy. The only reason to drag the former into it is an inability to discuss the the latter civilly or coherently.

Earlier in this thread you trivialized the victimization of a single individual. Here you trivialize the victimization of an entire race. That you do so based upon a deluded belief in your own moral superiority proves the adage: irony is wasted on the stupid.

Such rhetoric is despicable. Your reliance on it betrays the feebleness of your thought and the paucity of your ideas. It and you are deserving only of contempt.
 
I hate to say it, but I think Fun is far more correct than people like to admit.
Click to expand...
I wonder why you hate to say it, if it is the truth.

I don't agree that the problem here is with the 1% though. The problem is Government spending on wars, oil contracts, war contracts, lobby groups, special interests and the like. Occupy Wall Street IMO is misguided. Maybe "Occupy Pentagon" or "Occupy Politicians Homes" would be more appropriate outlet.

We can't fault the banker for being greedy. Bankers have always been that way. We can fault our government for stealing our money, legally of course. The reason our country is floundering is because our tax dollars were and are handed out by our leaders, like beers at a frat party. They handed it to bankers, big oil, the war machine and countless other avenues. We spend 4-6 trillion occupying Iraq. A country at did nothing to us and wasn't even a hotbed of "terror". We destabilized the region on top of it, overthrowing a dictator. All in the name of war contracts.
Click to expand...
 
I find this sort of vague conspiracy mongering about greedy bankers and a shadowy military industrial complex pointless and misguided. Although I think generally that our foreign policy is preposterous and that military intervention in the Mideast was precipitous and unjustified, the US has somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 trillion dollars in unfunded social liabilities - that's enough to finance 100 wars in Iraq, lasting 1000 years. That is not the issue and that is not the danger.

Speaking of poetry: there's something happening here. Let me be exactly clear what's going down.

The United States is headed towards a social and economic caste system. On the one hand will be a 51 percent majority comprising three groups. (1) An underclass of peoples who subsist in the main by sucking on the government teat - cradle to grave healthcare and welfare, aid to dependents, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare. Presiding over this bloated and ever growing bureaucracy will be (2a) a vast cadre of diversity coordinators and other pointless civil servants, abetted by (2b) a government mandated propaganda system comprising the media and the educational system, all of whom will receive generous salaries, benefits, and extended retirement pensions from their overseers, an (3) elite group of functionaries and officials who spend their days jetting to golf vacations on Marthas Vineyard in their taxpayer funded planes, where they dine on taxpayer funded Kobe beef and afterwards attend taxpayer funded gala balls, rising in the morning to send out communiques reminding the taxpayers to turn down their thermostats and debating what sort of toilet paper the taxpayers will be permitted to flush down their government seal of approval toilets.

On the other hand will be the taxpayers, aka the "middle class", a 49 percent minority of drones, who'll spend their days stooped over in the fields meeting an agricultural quota imposed upon them by the Assistant Vice Undersecretary of Rice and Other Cereal Grains, a recent Harvard graduate, at the US Federal Department of Agricultural Quotients and Quotas.

On the bright side I expect I'll be dead by the time this socialist utopia arrives. But I don’t doubt that my comrades will find a use for my ashes, as fertilizer, for the common good.
 
Last I looked government spends money on defense, Medicare, Social Security, National Infrastruture etc. All those recipients involve people who pay taxes. If you shrink government exponentially all it does is put more people on unemployment and kill the Haliburtons, Boeings, etc. who sell to it.  I have yet to see the Government getting into tax free municipals and the myriad other tax shelters the big boys use. Maybe it would be a lot more solvent if it did but it wouldn't pay my doctors or fix too many potholes. It's funny how people's politics change as they come closer to needing what the government provides. Think all the high paid guys who have lost jobs keep voting Republican as they stand on unemployment lines looking for ways to feed their familys? Tough way to join the ranks of the common man. There are still some prosperous people out there hating the less fortunate. When it comes to election time however their votes don't count any more than the protesters". Then it becomes a pure numbers game and in the long run it's a battle they can't win as people become more enlightened the hard way.
 
I've been reading this forum over my hubby's shoulder for years now, but it took this thread to get me to sign on.

I wish that civility had been a little more apparent in the comments of the OWS supporters, because I am one of them, but Fun, you have definitely shown greater eloquence.

I have visited OWS several times and found earnest people genuinely braving the elements for idealistic reasons, visions of Valley Forge. They think frequently about those less powerful than they. Characterizing them as America-haters is as unfair as saying all rich people are blood-sucking leeches.

It's patriotic to speak up. Exercising one's First Amendment rights helps ensure they'll be around for the next generation. I don't mind that my neighborhood isn't quite as easy to traverse as it was. More local businesses are gaining money from the extra foot traffic than losing it.

Isn't it a sign of hope that people are as passionate about their actual lives and our collective future as we get about the prospect of beating Kryzewski?

My particular version of patriotism put me and my 2 kids, then under age 6 on a dawn bus to Washington to protest the Iraq war before it started. I sure wish it felt like those of you who now condemn the war had been with us then. Instead, however, we felt pretty alone. That feeling, and the zeal with which this nation plunged into war has everything to do with how corporate control of communication has distorted the relationship between the common people and our 'system' of government. Even NPR, no doubt worried about its funds being cut, denigrated the largest anti-war protest in 30 years as let-down. Charlie Rose chided a guest for suggesting the impending war was about oil.

Fun, isn't it possible that the power money has in the political process has corrupted the system to ensure that the haves keep getting more? I've worked hard most of my life and have a lot of respect for labor, but it's obvious to me that the economy doesn't generate enough jobs for the ever-growing number of credentialed people.

The corporate control of the message successfully maintains the illusion that anyone who works hard will get the markers of success - cars, second homes, fashion. If you don't get those you're a "loser". You're lazy. If you know you're not lazy, you can only conclude that someone, or the government, conspires against you.

Instead, however, it's a lottery. No wonder most people are unhappy with the economy.
 
I have visited OWS several times and found earnest people genuinely braving the elements for idealistic reasons, visions of Valley Forge.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I envision Valley Forge:

occupy-wall-street2.top.jpg


11nd-occupy-wall-st-620x411.jpg


isn't it possible that the power money has in the political process has corrupted the system to ensure that the haves keep getting more?
Click to expand...
 

You use the word, "corrupted" meaning that at one time it was not corrupt. Please give me a few examples of successful civilized societies throughout history in which money or wealth did not play a part in some way or another in the political process. Better yet, give some examples of some countries that practiced the socialist values that the OWS movement seem to feel should be implemented, that did not eventually lead to total corruptness.

Thanks.
 
Great pics, NYC Showtime.

Yes, we live in a different time. I'm sure you're right that the actual conditions at Valley Forge would turn some of today's protestors away - but remember the conditions EVERYONE lived in then!

Yes, money and wealth have always played a role in government. Didn't a noble bring about a model of democracy in Athens, and wasn't Pericles important in preserving it? He was well off, but idealistic. He also was in a comparatively small community where the channels of communication - face to face conversation and debate - couldn't be systematically diverted to profit-making.

I'm not advocating socialism out-right, but there was a major successful tweaking of our idea - based system of government in the 1930s, and we need one again. Just because power corrupts doesn't mean we can't challenge it adequately. Why not make the US the example you asked me for?

The late, great George Carlin said it best. "The Owners of this country ... the actual owners ... spend billions of dollars every year, lobbying so they can get what they want. But we know what they want, they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

Watch it if you dare.

He also points out that this arrangement works because everyone goes along with it. I say, "Bravo to people willing to put their bodies on the line to say they DON't go along with it." I just wish that their sanitation could be as easily handled as at Valley Forge.
 
Fun, isn't it possible that the power money has in the political process has corrupted the system to ensure that the haves keep getting more?
Click to expand...
The answer is no, it’s not possible, it’s an ontological certitude: the political process is corrupt, and that corruption stems from greed and venality. But that answer demands a second question: is the solution to political corruption more politics? The only answer to that is no, in the same way that the solution to a water supply contaminated with feces isn’t more human waste in more water drunk by more people. The solution to political corruption is smaller government, fewer laws, less regulation, and greater liberty for the individual. It is individual citizens making rational choices about what is best for the welfare of themselves and their families, not compliance with government mandates that are cynically disguised as clarions to ephemeral notions of equality.

I've worked hard most of my life and have a lot of respect for labor, but it's obvious to me that the economy doesn't generate enough jobs for the ever-growing number of credentialed people..
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps instead of too few jobs there are too many credentialed people? Perhaps their credentials aren’t what they’re cracked up to be? Spending 120K for a degree in gender studies is as preposterous an economic decision as is getting a no money down interest only variable rate mortgage. If you make that sort of a ridiculous choice, are you entitled to have it rectified? Notice: entitled. If you think so: what is greed but the desire to take what’s in your neighbor’s pocket because you’ve already squandered what was in yours? OWS demands that their student loans be forgiven: they decry bailouts for bankers whilst simultaneously demanding bailouts for themselves. If that’s not greed, what is greed? And if it is greed, why is it any more or less good, or altruistic, or compassionate, or moral than a banker’s greed?

Life is nasty, cruel and brutish. One of the few ways it can get any worse is if someone else has the right to tell you how to live it. Liberty engenders choice, and choice engenders responsibility. My feeling is that people who make disastrous decisions should live with the consequences. Perhaps they’ll learn from them. All that’s down the other road is a jackboot in your face.
 
The answer is no, it’s not possible, it’s an ontological certitude: the political process is corrupt, and that corruption stems from greed and venality. But that answer demands a second question: is the solution to political corruption more politics? The only answer to that is no, in the same way that the solution to a water supply contaminated with feces isn’t more human waste in more water drunk by more people. The solution to political corruption is smaller government, fewer laws, less regulation, and greater liberty for the individual. It is individual citizens making rational choices about what is best for the welfare of themselves and their families, not compliance with government mandates that are cynically disguised as clarions to ephemeral notions of equality.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The same people who cry corrpution in politics and government want MORE of it as if that is the solution. Politicians are corrupt and waste our money. The solution, give them more of it and they will act better...

Perhaps instead of too few jobs there are too many credentialed people? Perhaps their credentials aren’t what they’re cracked up to be? Spending 120K for a degree in gender studies is as preposterous an economic decision as is getting a no money down interest only variable rate mortgage. If you make that sort of a ridiculous choice, are you entitled to have it rectified? Notice: entitled. If you think so: what is greed but the desire to take what’s in your neighbor’s pocket because you’ve already squandered what was in yours? OWS demands that their student loans be forgiven: they decry bailouts for bankers whilst simultaneously demanding bailouts for themselves. If that’s not greed, what is greed? And if it is greed, why is it any more or less good, or altruistic, or compassionate, or moral than a banker’s greed?

Life is nasty, cruel and brutish. One of the few ways it can get any worse is if someone else has the right to tell you how to live it. Liberty engenders choice, and choice engenders responsibility. My feeling is that people who make disastrous decisions should live with the consequences. Perhaps they’ll learn from them. All that’s down the other road is a jackboot in your face.
Click to expand...
 

Another good one. Stop majoring in God Awful left wing humanistic/environmental/sensitivity crap where this is almost no market and start trying to make something real out of your life. 
 
 If you are 20 and not a socialist you have no heart and if your are 30 and still a socialist you have no brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top