PDA

View Full Version : Obama is extending all Bush tax cuts, even the very wealthy.



Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 01:49 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html


President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.

That damn Marxist.

Where will this socialist nightmare end?!

djones520
11-11-2010, 02:03 AM
Funny how he only budged on this after the Republicans took the House.

I see good, and bad from this.

The good is that it shows he's willing to cooperate. The bad is that he's only willing to extend them out until 2012, which means he can campaign that he kept them in place, but if he wins reelection, he can try to let them drop once again.

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 02:10 AM
There's still the lame duck session, I just don't think they wanted to release something unpopular amongst the Democratic base until after the elections

djones520
11-11-2010, 02:12 AM
There's still the lame duck session, I just don't think they wanted to release something unpopular amongst the Democratic base until after the elections

And had the Dems won, do you think this would even be on the table?

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 02:15 AM
maybe. it would probably have started as middle-class tax cuts or tax cuts for the bottom 90% or something but it would have been banged up enough in the process that when it passed it would be essentially this.

sort of like a non-profit public health insurance option ended up being corporate welfare and a mandate to purchase private for-profit insurance. with plenty of seats to spare. Democrats are garbage, at least the Republicans are direct about what they want to do.

AmPat
11-11-2010, 05:35 AM
Weitard just can't help himself. He must carry the Great O Blah Blah's water no matter what.

Apocalypse
11-11-2010, 07:15 AM
I see several problems with them coming out and saying this.

First up is the House. This has to make it through Pelosi's House, Reps. won't take control for about 2 more months. That means that the house Dems, many packing to leave must agree and pass it first. If they don't agree to a full extension, then it doesn't happen.

Second up is the Senate. Reid and the Dems there, with some packing to leave must agree and pass it first as well. If they don't agree to a full extension, then it doesn't happen.

Then it once it gets the majority vote in a finial bill, then it makes it way to obumble, who his admin staffers (Note not him) has only 'Suggested' obumble may agree to full extensions for every one. He could punt, pass or veto. Hoping to cause it to fail and try and blame Rep. for its failure pointing to some part he doesn't like as reason for not passing it.

If it isn't passed within the next couple of weeks, we are all screwed and every one will see massive tax increases soon. Even those hurting most. And that is during a Dem controlled congress of both houses, not GOP.

Apocalypse
11-11-2010, 08:52 AM
Did any one else pick up on the BS lies in that article. After re-reading it, some just stood out.


For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added.

Note his calling it a Republican tax increase. But remembering back when it was passed, republicans wanted it to be permanent, but were forced to agree to a temp tax cut to get Dems to agree to pass the tax cuts or the bill was dead.

And any one catch this line?


"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

Unusual that is was only to the HP, and not a more broader news outlet, like more then one. This may be because his son works for the HP, and "Dad" agreed to the "Unusual" interview.

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 11:19 AM
No they will not let them expire because there is a lot of Tax Cuts for working Americans that Dems need to keep. Also like I've been saying for months Obama is a corporate shill who says I'm trying to "carry his water"?

Obama is doing just what Bush did.

Articulate_Ape
11-11-2010, 11:50 AM
How about this, WWW? They could put in a provision that allows any Democrat of whatever income bracket to voluntarily opt in to paying taxes at the old rate. Surely every Democrat will jump at the chance to show their conviction in this issue, especially all those very rich Democrats. And of course you would take part I'm sure.

lacarnut
11-11-2010, 11:55 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html



That damn Marxist.

Where will this socialist nightmare end?!

For those that do not pay Income taxes, there is no skin off their ass. Is that you?
Stupid liberals that think we do not pay enough taxes can always include a donation to the Treasury when they file. Did you know that, dummkopf?

Apocalypse
11-11-2010, 11:57 AM
And now they are backtracking on this Wei.


How Far will the White House Compromise on the Bush Tax Cuts?
November 11, 2010 10:01 AM <-- Note, Less then two hours ago!


White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod is giving further indication that the White House may be ready to cede ground to Republicans on the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts -- but only to a certain extent.

The tax cuts enacted in the early years of the Bush administration are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does not act. President Obama has urged Congress to extend the tax cuts for all Americans, except for the top 2 percent of income earners. Letting the tax cuts lapse for the top 2 percent would save the government $700 billion over the next 10 years, the president has repeatedly argued....


Axelrod reiterated to the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, "Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy."

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tried to downplay the Huffington Post article, telling Sargent that the article was "overwritten."

He added, "Nothing has changed from what the president said last week."

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KJ3CfaHtxMSi4Azl7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNGNqOHR qBHBvcwM1BHNlYwNzcgRjb2xvA2FjNAR2dGlkA1VTQzAxMV8x/SIG=12f8sp4cb/EXP=1289523034/**http%3a//www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022490-503544.html

So nothing has changed at all, save Axelrod shoving his foot in the Presidents mouth again and now the WH has to backtrack out of it.

djones520
11-11-2010, 12:11 PM
Axelrod, who confirmed to Fox News comments he made to The Huffington Post, suggested that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of current tax rates, marking a turnaround from the White House's pre-midterm election stance on impending tax increases.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," he said. However, Axelrod made clear to Fox News the White House is not conceding a permanent extension for the top 2 percent of earners.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/11/white-house-downplaying-concessions-upper-income-tax-cuts/

The confusion here is a permanent extension. It's going to be across the board temporary extension.

Apocalypse
11-11-2010, 12:19 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/11/white-house-downplaying-concessions-upper-income-tax-cuts/

The confusion here is a permanent extension. It's going to be across the board temporary extension.

It goes further then that if you read it.

Repubs. want an across the board extension of tax cuts for every one, making them all perm. The WH wants them Perm for every one save the top 2%. They want those to expire. Your snipe of Axelrod says that "the White House is not conceding" on the GOPs demands on cross the board extensions, and he is not coming out and saying they are looking at giving in on the top 2% ether. Just saying that the situation has changed.

fettpett
11-11-2010, 02:50 PM
yeah...because they know that top 2% pay 50+% of the taxes in this country and just want to leach more money out of them. The New GOP in the House need to take steps at pushing a restructured Tax structure, simplified or completely gotten rid of. The Senate may stop them, but if Boehnner can get the House to pass it with as big of a Majority as possible and get the People behind it, Obama and the Senate wont have much of a choice unless they are stupid enough to kill it.

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 03:15 PM
yeah...because they know that top 2% pay 50+% of the taxes in this country and just want to leach more money out of them. The New GOP in the House need to take steps at pushing a restructured Tax structure, simplified or completely gotten rid of. The Senate may stop them, but if Boehnner can get the House to pass it with as big of a Majority as possible and get the People behind it, Obama and the Senate wont have much of a choice unless they are stupid enough to kill it.

During the most rapid expansion of the middle class in history, in the 50's (the "good ol days" the elderly likes to reminisce about) the top tax bracket was taxed at around 90%, and now they are screaming and crying that 35% is socialist takeovers?

:rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
11-11-2010, 04:33 PM
I see you conveniently failed to reply to my earlier post here, WWW. How unsurprising.:rolleyes:

malloc
11-11-2010, 04:37 PM
During the most rapid expansion of the middle class in history, in the 50's (the "good ol days" the elderly likes to reminisce about) the top tax bracket was taxed at around 90%, and now they are screaming and crying that 35% is socialist takeovers?

:rolleyes:

Again, something we've gone over at length, and you still haven't learned economic history. How can you spout the same talking points off over and over after being repeatedly proven wrong?

Really, it's just pathetic.

Lager
11-11-2010, 05:11 PM
Letting the tax cuts lapse for the top 2 percent would save the government $700 billion over the next 10 years, the president has repeatedly argued....




The more honest, and correct way to say this is..."Grabbing more money from the top 2 percent would allow the government to take in and spend $700 billion over the next ten years,...."

Apocalypse
11-11-2010, 05:36 PM
The more honest, and correct way to say this is..."Grabbing more money from the top 2 percent would allow the government to take in and spend $700 billion over the next ten years,...."

Funny part is, dems keep snipping about the 800 billion from the top 2%, claiming that we can't afford to keep that tax break, completely not talking about the 3.1 Trillion that the rest get. As some how 800 Billion is a budget breaker, but 3.1 Trillion is pocket change.

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 05:59 PM
Funny part is, dems keep snipping about the 800 billion from the top 2%, claiming that we can't afford to keep that tax break, completely not talking about the 3.1 Trillion that the rest get. As some how 800 Billion is a budget breaker, but 3.1 Trillion is pocket change.

Think about this.

98% of the population gets $3,100,000,000,000
2% of the population gets $800,000,000,000

That means that 98% gets about 4 times more than the 2% wealthiest, even though there are 49 times as many people. Divide up 4 times more money between 49 times more people to get an idea of how the wealthy are treated differently by this tax code:

If we treat the bottom 98% equally (which isn't really how they are taxed, btw), then each percentile gets approx. $31.5 Billion

If we treat the top 2% equally, then each percentile gets $400 Billion

This means each of the top two percentiles (of equal population) gets well over 10 times as much as any of the bottom 98 percentiles (on average, of course).

People with more money will pay more in taxes (with a progressive tax scale), so naturally they will save more in tax cuts, but this extreme difference highlights the inequality in our society.


When people protest the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy, they are talking about a tax cut that benefits the wealthy well over 10 times as much as it benefits anyone else. In hard economic times I'm in favor of cutting taxes on people who need the money, like working Americans.

Bailey
11-11-2010, 06:02 PM
Think about this.

98% of the population gets $3,100,000,000,000
2% of the population gets $800,000,000,000

That means that 98% gets about 4 times more than the 2% wealthiest, even though there are 49 times as many people. Divide up 4 times more money between 49 times more people to get an idea of how the wealthy are treated differently by this tax code:

If we treat the bottom 98% equally (which isn't really how they are taxed, btw), then each percentile gets approx. $31.5 Billion

If we treat the top 2% equally, then each percentile gets $400 Billion

This means each of the top two percentiles (of equal population) gets well over 10 times as much as any of the bottom 98 percentiles (on average, of course).

People with more money will pay more in taxes (with a progressive tax scale), so naturally they will save more in tax cuts, but this extreme difference highlights the inequality in our society.


When people protest the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy, they are talking about a tax cut that benefits the wealthy well over 10 times as much as it benefits anyone else. In hard economic times I'm in favor of cutting taxes on people who need the money, like working Americans.


Poor people never gave me a job....ever.

rjas77
11-11-2010, 06:22 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html



That damn Marxist.

Where will this socialist nightmare end?!

It just proves once again that Bush was right :D

Madisonian
11-11-2010, 06:35 PM
Think about this.

98% of the population gets $3,100,000,000,000
2% of the population gets $800,000,000,000

That means that 98% gets about 4 times more than the 2% wealthiest, even though there are 49 times as many people. Divide up 4 times more money between 49 times more people to get an idea of how the wealthy are treated differently by this tax code:

If we treat the bottom 98% equally (which isn't really how they are taxed, btw), then each percentile gets approx. $31.5 Billion

If we treat the top 2% equally, then each percentile gets $400 Billion

This means each of the top two percentiles (of equal population) gets well over 10 times as much as any of the bottom 98 percentiles (on average, of course).

People with more money will pay more in taxes (with a progressive tax scale), so naturally they will save more in tax cuts, but this extreme difference highlights the inequality in our society.


When people protest the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy, they are talking about a tax cut that benefits the wealthy well over 10 times as much as it benefits anyone else. In hard economic times I'm in favor of cutting taxes on people who need the money, like working Americans.

And where, pray tell, do you think these top 2% put their wealth? Under their mattresses?
The lion's share of it is invested in other sections of the economy which then serves to provide employment for those in that section.

Using your figures (cited without a source), if we confiscated the entire $800 billion of the upper 2% and distributed it equally amongst the approximately 300 million citizens of the US you are looking at $2700 (approximately) per person for a 1 time benefit. Do you think that a one time check for $2700 is going to make a significant long term difference in anyone's life?

And I will bet you that $2700 that even if you did that, the large majority of those upper 2% will be back at the top within 5 years because of their entrepreneurial spirit and expertise.

Poverty is more mindset than a financial status.


"What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?"
James Madison

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 06:57 PM
what is this


And where, pray tell, do you think these top 2% put their wealth? Under their mattresses?
The lion's share of it is invested in other sections of the economy which then serves to provide employment for those in that section.

A significant portion of it is saved. Lots of it goes to influence the political realm.

Your trickle down theory assumes that there already exists demand for whatever is being sold or made by whoever gets hired. Yes with more money they could open up new stores and hire more people, but that's a terrible investment if there isn't high demand for your product.

Demand comes from the greater 98%, particularly the working class. These people (which I assume most of us are) are the ones who are more likely to spend money saved from tax cuts because they use their paychecks on bills and food.

Money going towards the bottom majority increases demand, which should increase growth for business, no?

Wealthy people may spend or invest the money, or they may save it or spend in ways that are non-productive. Middle class people are more likely to spend the money. However, we shouldn't only look at what increases demand for commodities, there is more than just money and there are people starving in America.




Using your figures (cited without a source), if we confiscated the entire $800 billion of the upper 2% and distributed it equally amongst the approximately 300 million citizens of the US you are looking at $2700 (approximately) per person for a 1 time benefit. Do you think that a one time check for $2700 is going to make a significant long term difference in anyone's life?

I used to figures the poster before me used.

Also, what are you talking about? The entire $800 billion? There's no entire, that's just the amount to be taken from taxes in one year, there's $800 and there's much more.

Why do you assume it is a one-time benefit? If we invest in roads, education, energy, ect. then the benefits continue to pay off as time goes on. If we invest in jobs people can get continued paychecks.

I would be okay with raising taxes on that upper 2%, tax rates for the wealthy are historically low.

The richest 400 people (according to Forbes 2007) in America had a net worth of about $1.25 Trillion. That's over a trillion in the hands of just 400 individuals in a society of over 300 million people, and we say we can't afford health care or social security because the deficit is high? please.

lacarnut
11-11-2010, 07:13 PM
I see you conveniently failed to reply to my earlier post here, WWW. How unsurprising.:rolleyes:

The dumb fucker is not here to reply to our posts. He just cuts and paste liberal garbage over and over. If shit was brains, he would not even get a smell..

Lager
11-11-2010, 07:38 PM
what is this




Demand comes from the greater 98%, particularly the working class. These people (which I assume most of us are) are the ones who are more likely to spend money saved from tax cuts because they use their paychecks on bills and food.




One of the reasons demand is low, is that many people followed the government's example and found themselves deeply in debt. The government did all it could to stimulate the use of credit, and it worked. But the bubbles burst. Now it's going to take some time to work through the de-leveraging and it might be painful. But in the long run, it will be good for our economy.

Madisonian
11-11-2010, 07:40 PM
what is this



A significant portion of it is saved. Lots of it goes to influence the political realm.

Your trickle down theory assumes that there already exists demand for whatever is being sold or made by whoever gets hired. Yes with more money they could open up new stores and hire more people, but that's a terrible investment if there isn't high demand for your product.

Demand comes from the greater 98%, particularly the working class. These people (which I assume most of us are) are the ones who are more likely to spend money saved from tax cuts because they use their paychecks on bills and food.

Money going towards the bottom majority increases demand, which should increase growth for business, no?

Wealthy people may spend or invest the money, or they may save it or spend in ways that are non-productive. Middle class people are more likely to spend the money. However, we shouldn't only look at what increases demand for commodities, there is more than just money and there are people starving in America.





I used to figures the poster before me used.

Also, what are you talking about? The entire $800 billion? There's no entire, that's just the amount to be taken from taxes in one year, there's $800 and there's much more.

Why do you assume it is a one-time benefit? If we invest in roads, education, energy, ect. then the benefits continue to pay off as time goes on. If we invest in jobs people can get continued paychecks.

I would be okay with raising taxes on that upper 2%, tax rates for the wealthy are historically low.

The richest 400 people (according to Forbes 2007) in America had a net worth of about $1.25 Trillion. That's over a trillion in the hands of just 400 individuals in a society of over 300 million people, and we say we can't afford health care or social security because the deficit is high? please.

Well, except for a possible stretch into "post roads", there is no constitutional authority to invest in education, energy, health care or even social security without going into the debunked "general welfare" quagmire. This may be a State issue depending on the will of its residents, but is not a federal issue and was never intended to be one.
I am sure you would be ok with raising taxes on the upper 2%. Most thieves rarely care who their victim is.

Also, money saved is not money stagnant. The institutions holding those savings loan that money out for houses, business capital, car loans, etc.

I would be interested on your definition of "non-productive" spending. Is it something that is not included in the GDP? Does no one benefit from it? Even obscenely expensive yachts have to be built by some one. Are you saying that their jobs are "non-productive"?

malloc
11-11-2010, 08:13 PM
The richest 400 people (according to Forbes 2007) in America had a net worth of about $1.25 Trillion. That's over a trillion in the hands of just 400 individuals in a society of over 300 million people, and we say we can't afford health care or social security because the deficit is high? please.

Of course you would overlook the fact that the $1.25 Trillion you cited belongs to just 400 people, it does not belong to the 300 Million no matter how much you wish the world were socially just. Do you think it's unfair that these people have accrued such wealth? So unfair in fact that it should be taken from them? These are yes or no questions, so spare us the so-called "nuance" and petty justifications. Is it proper for government to steal from these few to provide for the many?



Also, money saved is not money stagnant. The institutions holding those savings loan that money out for houses, business capital, car loans, etc.


Wee Wee knows all this, or should know by now. We've all educated him, quoted texts, given concrete examples and proofs, and he will just ignore it to keep drinking the cool-aid. He's kind of a lousy troll that way, he never changes his beat, lists off the same talking points day after day. When you really corner him, he'll try to change the subject or bolt from the thread.

asdf2231
11-11-2010, 10:04 PM
No they will not let them expire because there is a lot of Tax Cuts for working Americans that Dems need to keep. Also like I've been saying for months Obama is a corporate shill who says I'm trying to "carry his water"?

Obama is doing just what Bush did.

oh not quite.

its an act of capitulation that makes him look weaker than he did. (if thats possible)

fettpett
11-11-2010, 10:41 PM
The richest 400 people (according to Forbes 2007) in America had a net worth of about $1.25 Trillion. That's over a trillion in the hands of just 400 individuals in a society of over 300 million people, and we say we can't afford health care or social security because the deficit is high? please.

actually worth more than that, about 10% of the US GDP (which coincidently has gone Down about a trillion or so dollars) or 1.37 Trillion. I'm guessing that much of that has to do with them buying up the assets of companies that are going belly up.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/400-richest-americans-worth-10-of-us-economy/63423/

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 10:42 PM
One of the reasons demand is low, is that many people followed the government's example and found themselves deeply in debt. The government did all it could to stimulate the use of credit, and it worked. But the bubbles burst. Now it's going to take some time to work through the de-leveraging and it might be painful. But in the long run, it will be good for our economy.

Now let's not confuse household finance with national finance.

Yes the government takes on debt, because the government can do so at interest rates that regular consumers cannot.

This isn't about "setting an example" for Americans.

Demand is low, and job growth wont work with a supply-side economic policy if there is no demand.

fettpett
11-11-2010, 10:51 PM
Now let's not confuse household finance with national finance.

Yes the government takes on debt, because the government can do so at interest rates that regular consumers cannot.

This isn't about "setting an example" for Americans.

Demand is low, and job growth wont work with a supply-side economic policy if there is no demand.

demand is low because there is no one to buy said product because of the policies of the last 2 years have completely fucked us over, the only proven method of Growth is Tax Cuts. You can go clear back to the found of this Country and see it. Find me ONE time when Economic Growth was fueled by something other than Tax Cuts and a War effort

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 10:54 PM
Of course you would overlook the fact that the $1.25 Trillion you cited belongs to just 400 people, it does not belong to the 300 Million no matter how much you wish the world were socially just. Do you think it's unfair that these people have accrued such wealth?

Yes. It's unfair because they have accrued such wealth only at the exploitation of people who actually produce it. Labor is the most basic commodity, so much so that it is in fact necessary for all other commodities to be produced. It is the zero-point of our system and the introduction of profit is the exploitation of that labor. A capitalist can only become wealthy by claiming that the fruits of other peoples' work belongs to them, because of a symbolic contract that they themselves wrote.

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, so when a Capitalist becomes wealthy by accruing the surplus labor value of thousands of workers, and gives them a tiny fraction of their labor value just so they don't starve to death, while paying himself hundreds of times more just because his name is on the paperwork.


So unfair in fact that it should be taken from them? These are yes or no questions, so spare us the so-called "nuance" and petty justifications. Is it proper for government to steal from these few to provide for the many?

The question is, it is proper for the many to take back the wealth that they created from the few? The government is just the arm of the people. at least that's what it is supposed to be.

Would you support a serf revolution in a feudal society? The serfs do all the work, which the lords claim as theirs, as well as all the fruits of their labor, and the lords pay the serfs a barely-living wage, just enough for them to keep working. In this system, the lords own the land, it's theirs, so is it improper for the serfs to "steal" this land? Is it improper for them to say that fruits of their labor should belong to he who does the labor?

Yes I know someone is going to point out that Capitalism isn't Feudalism but it is similar in many ways. The main difference is that you are able to move more freely from one class to another in Capitalism (although the degree of real social mobility is extremely overestimated by most Americans) rather than class being 100% inherited (although inheritance plays a huge role, that's obvious). But yes, I get that they are not the exact same thing so put away your dictionaries.

Rockntractor
11-11-2010, 10:57 PM
Yes. It's unfair because they have accrued such wealth only at the exploitation of people who actually produce it. Labor is the most basic commodity, so much so that it is in fact necessary for all other commodities to be produced. It is the zero-point of our system and the introduction of profit is the exploitation of that labor. A capitalist can only become wealthy by claiming that the fruits of other peoples' work belongs to them, because of a symbolic contract that they themselves wrote.

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, so when a Capitalist becomes wealthy by accruing the surplus labor value of thousands of workers, and gives them a tiny fraction of their labor value just so they don't starve to death, while paying himself hundreds of times more just because his name is on the paperwork.



The question is, it is proper for the many to take back the wealth that they created from the few? The government is just the arm of the people. at least that's what it is supposed to be.

Would you support a serf revolution in a feudal society? The serfs do all the work, which the lords claim as theirs, as well as all the fruits of their labor, and the lords pay the serfs a barely-living wage, just enough for them to keep working. In this system, the lords own the land, it's theirs, so is it improper for the serfs to take the land as their own? Is it improper for them to say that fruits of their labor should belong to he who does the labor?

Yes I know someone is going to point out that Capitalism isn't Feudalism but it is similar in many ways. The main difference is that you are able to move more freely from one class to another in Capitalism (although the degree of real social mobility is extremely overestimated by most Americans) rather than class being 100% inherited (although inheritance plays a huge role, that's obvious). But yes, I get that they are not the exact same thing so put away your dictionaries.
You dingbat, do you honestly think anyone over here is going to be won over to your socialism.
Go get stoned so you will only be wasting your time!

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 11:00 PM
Well, except for a possible stretch into "post roads", there is no constitutional authority to invest in education, energy, health care or even social security without going into the debunked "general welfare" quagmire.

Debunked?

The nation has been investing in things like railroads, communications, energy, ect. for a very long time pal.



Also, money saved is not money stagnant. The institutions holding those savings loan that money out for houses, business capital, car loans, etc.

Yes we know how great our banks are at investing money.

Yes unless they are literally stuffing billions under a giant mattress I realize that the money will flow into the economy, but when you put the money into working Americans they are more likely to spend their money on direct tangible things that do produce jobs, like foods, goods, services, items.

The wealthy spend it on financial services, donations, even lobbying which hardly is putting steak-eating red-blooded Americans to work.



I would be interested on your definition of "non-productive" spending. Is it something that is not included in the GDP? Does no one benefit from it? Even obscenely expensive yachts have to be built by some one. Are you saying that their jobs are "non-productive"?

1 definition of non-productive spending is top level management of big companies. their work is purely at shuffling money, manipulating symbols, rather than actually creating what their company deals in. for example, buying a company from someone doesn't create anything new, it only adds more to your portfolio.


A better definition is money spent on political campaigns, lobbyists, ect.

Wei Wu Wei
11-11-2010, 11:08 PM
You dingbat, do you honestly think anyone over here is going to be won over to your socialism.
Go get stoned so you will only be wasting your time!

Just having the discussion. People can argue against me, people can articulate good sound arguments about why I'm wrong, people can discuss in a friendly manner about our initial presuppositions where we differentiate, people can post cuss words, people can ignore me, people can insult me, people can try their hardest to make it known to me that they don't care.

How you guys respond is up to you, I'd prefer discussion, I'd prefer openness, I'd prefer you guys writing really good arguments that totally counter my most basic premises, but I'm realistic. Of course I wouldn't mind anyone changing their mind and thinking maybe Socialism isn't the big bad boogyman we were all taught it was when we were children.

Don't think of this as a game, none of us will "lose" if we change our political positions over time (in fact I consider change to be a sign of growth), none of us will "win" by being dicks to people on the internet either.

Rockntractor
11-11-2010, 11:17 PM
Just having the discussion. People can argue against me, people can articulate good sound arguments about why I'm wrong, people can discuss in a friendly manner about our initial presuppositions where we differentiate, people can post cuss words, people can ignore me, people can insult me, people can try their hardest to make it known to me that they don't care.

How you guys respond is up to you, I'd prefer discussion, I'd prefer openness, I'd prefer you guys writing really good arguments that totally counter my most basic premises, but I'm realistic. Of course I wouldn't mind anyone changing their mind and thinking maybe Socialism isn't the big bad boogyman we were all taught it was when we were children.

Don't think of this as a game, none of us will "lose" if we change our political positions over time (in fact I consider change to be a sign of growth), none of us will "win" by being dicks to people on the internet either.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/piggy.gif?t=1289535401

RobJohnson
11-12-2010, 06:05 AM
I see several problems with them coming out and saying this.

First up is the House. This has to make it through Pelosi's House, Reps. won't take control for about 2 more months. That means that the house Dems, many packing to leave must agree and pass it first. If they don't agree to a full extension, then it doesn't happen.

Second up is the Senate. Reid and the Dems there, with some packing to leave must agree and pass it first as well. If they don't agree to a full extension, then it doesn't happen.

Then it once it gets the majority vote in a finial bill, then it makes it way to obumble, who his admin staffers (Note not him) has only 'Suggested' obumble may agree to full extensions for every one. He could punt, pass or veto. Hoping to cause it to fail and try and blame Rep. for its failure pointing to some part he doesn't like as reason for not passing it.

If it isn't passed within the next couple of weeks, we are all screwed and every one will see massive tax increases soon. Even those hurting most. And that is during a Dem controlled congress of both houses, not GOP.

Reid is rich, he should love the tax savings. :D

Jfor
11-12-2010, 07:59 AM
Just having the discussion. People can argue against me, people can articulate good sound arguments about why I'm wrong, people can discuss in a friendly manner about our initial presuppositions where we differentiate, people can post cuss words, people can ignore me, people can insult me, people can try their hardest to make it known to me that they don't care.

How you guys respond is up to you, I'd prefer discussion, I'd prefer openness, I'd prefer you guys writing really good arguments that totally counter my most basic premises, but I'm realistic. Of course I wouldn't mind anyone changing their mind and thinking maybe Socialism isn't the big bad boogyman we were all taught it was when we were children.

Don't think of this as a game, none of us will "lose" if we change our political positions over time (in fact I consider change to be a sign of growth), none of us will "win" by being dicks to people on the internet either.

I'd prefer if you take your socialism and FOAD. Not gonna happen is it? Socialism is not American. Never has been and never will be. There are way too many country's on this Earth that you can go to and be a happy little socialist. Go where the socialism is let us keep our capitalism.

3rd-try
11-12-2010, 08:11 AM
How about this, WWW? They could put in a provision that allows any Democrat of whatever income bracket to voluntarily opt in to paying taxes at the old rate. Surely every Democrat will jump at the chance to show their conviction in this issue, especially all those very rich Democrats. And of course you would take part I'm sure.

Man, I'd still like WWW to impress us with by answering this. He must be really busy.

AmPat
11-12-2010, 10:54 AM
yeah...because they know that top 2% pay 50+% of the taxes in this country and just want to leach more money out of them. The New GOP in the House need to take steps at pushing a restructured Tax structure, simplified or completely gotten rid of. The Senate may stop them, but if Boehnner can get the House to pass it with as big of a Majority as possible and get the People behind it, Obama and the Senate wont have much of a choice unless they are stupid enough to kill it.
They are. DIM/LIBS are nothing if not stupid.

Hawkgirl
11-12-2010, 11:17 AM
Looks like Obama is taking advice from Bush on his book tour.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 11:17 AM
You do realize that when a rich Democrat is voting to increase tax rates on the highest bracket, he is effectively voting for his own tax increase....

AmPat
11-12-2010, 11:19 AM
You do realize that when a rich Democrat is voting to increase tax rates on the highest bracket, he is effectively voting for his own tax increase....

How much does King Soros pay?

Bailey
11-12-2010, 11:23 AM
You do realize that when a rich Democrat is voting to increase tax rates on the highest bracket, he is effectively voting for his own tax increase....

So if you screw yourself its ok to do it to others?

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 11:24 AM
I'd prefer if you take your socialism and FOAD. Not gonna happen is it? Socialism is not American. Never has been and never will be. There are way too many country's on this Earth that you can go to and be a happy little socialist. Go where the socialism is let us keep our capitalism.

Actually Socialism is very American. Socialism has helped shaped the America we have today. It wasn't until the Cold War era, and all of the culture around it (McCarthyism, Wolverines! , Rocky IV, ect.) that Socialism became associated with "the enemy".

Some of America's greatest people, including Martin Luther King Jr, Helen Keller, Mr. Bellamy the author of the Pledge of Allegiance, and even non-Americans that greatly influenced our history like George Orwell and Albert Einstein were all socialists.

Molon Labe
11-12-2010, 11:26 AM
If you understand the system, then you know the truly rich don't really pay taxes (that 1%). The consumers get the tax passed to them.

So, when you hear a socialist say "raise taxes on the rich"....realize that you just screwed your own cost of living.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 11:33 AM
If you understand the system, then you know the truly rich don't really pay taxes (that 1%). The consumers get the tax passed to them.

So, when you hear a socialist say "raise taxes on the rich"....realize that you just screwed your own cost of living.

Maybe if you are raising corporate taxes. The same doesn't follow for income taxes, capital gains, estate taxes, or others.

Even still, what happened to the fundamentals of capitalism? You are assuming that all companies will raise their prices, but wouldn't it be smart to keep your costs low, eat the difference for now, and because you have the lowest prices you make up the difference in volume sales?

Again this idea that the rich always pass it on assumes infinite or at least indefinitely high demand. As if consumers simply have the demand for these goods. If the wealthy try to raise the prices of their goods, demand will shrink even more. How is that good for business? Unless working Americans have money of their own to spend, to stimulate demand, no amount of price changing or tax cuts for the wealthy are going to spur the economy.

The economy only runs when people are buying stuff, and they only buy stuff when they have the demand for it, which requires money to buy it.

Molon Labe
11-12-2010, 11:59 AM
The ultra rich can only exploit the rest when there is legal plunder on their side.


Every man who puts money into the hands of a “government”(so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will - Lysander Spooner

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 12:20 PM
If only we had a government that represented working Americans rather than a few ultra rich elite.

We need to fix campaign financing, lobbying, stuff like that.

Of course the Democrats and Republicans are going to just throw our money to the wealthy, we need something else.


We can agree largely on the problems, and it's clear that both political parties are in bed with this tiny wealthy elite, so what's the solution?

Molon Labe
11-12-2010, 12:37 PM
If only we had a government that represented working Americans rather than a few ultra rich elite.

We need to fix campaign financing, lobbying, stuff like that.

Of course the Democrats and Republicans are going to just throw our money to the wealthy, we need something else.

We can agree largely on the problems, and it's clear that both political parties are in bed with this tiny wealthy elite, so what's the solution?


5% of the population has to stop spending the live long day watching new media. Then that 5% has to pick up a book on a particular current event subject and read it. Then they have to be motivated to use their atrophied (but still capable) God given critical thinking skills to move beyond a system whose indoctrinated us that the highest civic virtue is to vote. :rolleyes:

Alot of people know "about" something. But REALLY knowing a subject requires time and effort. Something few are willing to do.

until that happens.........probably nothing.

RobJohnson
11-12-2010, 01:50 PM
We can agree largely on the problems, and it's clear that both political parties are in bed with this tiny wealthy elite, so what's the solution?

You leaving :p:D

lacarnut
11-12-2010, 01:58 PM
You leaving :p:D

We could not get so lucky.

Lager
11-12-2010, 04:48 PM
Capitalism is inherently exploitative, so when a Capitalist becomes wealthy by accruing the surplus labor value of thousands of workers, and gives them a tiny fraction of their labor value just so they don't starve to death, while paying himself hundreds of times more just because his name is on the paperwork.



Let's look at Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates. Two of the biggest capitalists in our society. How did they get wealthy from the surplus labor of thousands of workers? How do they fit in, in your latest rant against capitalism?

Lager
11-12-2010, 04:56 PM
If only we had a government that represented working Americans rather than a few ultra rich elite.

We need to fix campaign financing, lobbying, stuff like that.




Do you never tire of that worn out line? Campaign financing is a crutch. It had zilch to do with the latest elections. Some of the richest candidates who spent the most money went down in flames. Less money is spent on politics than Americans spend on yogurt in a year. Quit looking for some nefarious scapegoat simply because the majority of Americans disagree with your views.

malloc
11-12-2010, 05:06 PM
Yes.

You could have stopped right there. You believe that theft is a right retained by the majority against the minority, plain and simple.



It's unfair because they have accrued such wealth only at the exploitation of people who actually produce it. Labor is the most basic commodity, so much so that it is in fact necessary for all other commodities to be produced. It is the zero-point of our system and the introduction of profit is the exploitation of that labor.


For starters, life isn't fair, it never has been and it will never be. Secondly, a system of wealth and material generation that didn't either exploit or employ labor has never, ever been produced. Do you think Castro's wealth doesn't come from the exploitation of Cuban labor? Do you think Chavez doesn't exploit Venezuelans, or that Lenin didn't exploit Russians? Your system of fairness, throughout history has only brought misery, a lower standard of living, and unnecessary death. The historical record is crystal clear on this point. The introduction of profit is what saved mankind from feudal, tribal or dictatorial systems and the free market is what delivered the standard of living westernized countries enjoy today. History takes your idea of "fair" and chews it up, and spits out because your idea of fair gets people killed by the millions.



A capitalist can only become wealthy by claiming that the fruits of other peoples' work belongs to them, because of a symbolic contract that they themselves wrote.

So, you are basically saying that the top 2% in this country are so much smarter, and so much more charming that it's almost magical they can dupe their employees into being exploited by their own free will? That's quite a retarded world view, and not one that I've encountered before. If the owner of my company, who's a multimillionaire by the way, can turn a profit of what I produce, then more power to him, so long as I'm fairly compensated for my time and talents. I am fairly, even generously, compensated.



Capitalism is inherently exploitative, so when a Capitalist becomes wealthy by accruing the surplus labor value of thousands of workers, and gives them a tiny fraction of their labor value just so they don't starve to death, while paying himself hundreds of times more just because his name is on the paperwork.

Surplus labor value? I'm pretty sure you can't even convince yourself your believe in this nonsense anymore. First of all, there is no such thing as surplus labor value. The value of labor is what price it will fetch at market, and that is all there is to it. If a contractor hires laborers to dig ditches and he can find laborers who will agree to dig the ditches for $10 an hour, even though the contractor is going to make hundreds of thousands off the building those ditches are going to provide the foundation for, then guess what? That labor has a value of $10 an hour, and no more. That labor's value isn't based on the contract price of the building, it's not based on the wealth of the contractor, or the person who hired him. That labor value is based on free market actors making decisions which better their positions and standards of living. If the contractor can't find a laborer for $10 an hour, he'll have to go up to $11, or $15, and that is how the value of labor is determined. The value of labor is not based on the final value of the product, the final value of the product is what price it will fetch at market, not the combined value of labor going into the product. That's an economic fact, not a moonbat dream.



The question is, it is proper for the many to take back the wealth that they created from the few?

The laborers did not "create" the wealth of the employers, and you are stretching your world view very, very thin if you expect anyone other than one of the few Marxist moonbats left in this world to agree with you. Did the laborer pouring the ore create the wealth that Carnagie steel amassed? If so how? I'd hate to break it to you, but making the steel did not create the wealth. Bringing the steel to a market hungry for it, and willing to pay for it, is what created Carnagie's wealth. If that laborer had poured ore all day, every day for 30 years, and Carnagie couldn't sell an ounce of the stuff, then under your world view, the ore pourer's labor is worthless isn't it? Even though Carnagie built the enterprise, infrastructure and logistics necessary to bring steel to a market which demanded it, his labor, vision and risk, are worth no more than the guy pouring ore out of a furnace? Without Carnagie's infrastructure, that laborer wouldn't have ore to pour or a furnace to pour it from, and there are many cities, railroads, and bridges that stand testament to the fact that Carnagie's steel pipeline was worth much, much more than the man pouring the ore.




The government is just the arm of the people. at least that's what it is supposed to be.

Time for another basic civics lesson is it? The American form of government is not an 'arm of the people'. A proper government applies laws equally to protect the individuals whom are governed from force and fraud. This provides an equal and level field of opportunity in which a single individual may increase his wealth, his quality of life, and standard of living through enterprise, employment, or whatever legal means an individual can conjure. I don't know where you want to live, but in America the promise is equal footing at the starting line, not an equal finish.



Would you support a serf revolution in a feudal society? The serfs do all the work, which the lords claim as theirs, as well as all the fruits of their labor, and the lords pay the serfs a barely-living wage, just enough for them to keep working. In this system, the lords own the land, it's theirs, so is it improper for the serfs to "steal" this land? Is it improper for them to say that fruits of their labor should belong to he who does the labor?

Would you support a serf revolution in a socialist society? The serfs do all the work, which the government claims as it's own, as well all the fruits of the serf's labor. The government doles out a barely-living wage, based on the decisions of a few on an appropriations committee, just enough for the serfs to keep working. In this system, the government owns the land, it's theirs, so is it improper for the serfs to "steal" this land? Is it improper for the serfs to say the fruits of their labor should belong to he who does the labor?

See what I did there? The kind of society you advocate is exactly like a feudal system, only with a tyrannical government replacing the feudal lords. Your labor is the product of your time and talents. Carnagie spent the time and had the talent to build an empire out of steel manufacture. Isn't he then just as entitled to the fruits of his labor, or is he disqualified because he was too talented and got too rich? When it all boils down, your only argument is class warfare, it's kind of a sad argument because it will never hold up to logic.



Yes I know someone is going to point out that Capitalism isn't Feudalism but it is similar in many ways. The main difference is that you are able to move more freely from one class to another in Capitalism (although the degree of real social mobility is extremely overestimated by most Americans) rather than class being 100% inherited (although inheritance plays a huge role, that's obvious). But yes, I get that they are not the exact same thing so put away your dictionaries.


I think I just demonstrated the fact that socialism is much, much closer to feudalism than capitalism will ever be. I agree with your assumption that social mobility is overstated in America, however, keep in mind that social mobility has decreased as governmental influence, welfare, and regulation has increased. The next time you hear about a proposed minimum wage hike, remember that's going to mean fewer jobs in the marketplace, which means a student won't be able to find a job to finish school, which means less social mobility. The next time you read about a cash for clunkers program, remember that it's going to shrink the supply and increase the prices of used vehicles, meaning a working stiff may not be able to take that higher paying job a few miles away because he's been priced out of buying a more reliable car. Think about what a determent to social mobility a system like Cap & Trade will be when every single thing that requires energy will cost more thus reducing disposable income that might be used for higher learning, retirement investment, or opening a small business.

fettpett
11-12-2010, 05:31 PM
Actually Socialism is very American. Socialism has helped shaped the America we have today. It wasn't until the Cold War era, and all of the culture around it (McCarthyism, Wolverines! , Rocky IV, ect.) that Socialism became associated with "the enemy".

Some of America's greatest people, including Martin Luther King Jr, Helen Keller, Mr. Bellamy the author of the Pledge of Allegiance, and even non-Americans that greatly influenced our history like George Orwell and Albert Einstein were all socialists.

Marx was a German, and no, it's not "very American" it's opposite of what America stands for. The men and women that came to the American colonies came to build their fortunes and raise families.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 06:09 PM
Let's look at Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates. Two of the biggest capitalists in our society. How did they get wealthy from the surplus labor of thousands of workers? How do they fit in, in your latest rant against capitalism?

""Of course there is a class war, but it's my class, the rich class, that is waging the war, and we're winning.""

- Warren Buffet

Madisonian
11-12-2010, 06:11 PM
Actually Socialism is very American. Socialism has helped shaped the America we have today. It wasn't until the Cold War era, and all of the culture around it (McCarthyism, Wolverines! , Rocky IV, ect.) that Socialism became associated with "the enemy".

Some of America's greatest people, including Martin Luther King Jr, Helen Keller, Mr. Bellamy the author of the Pledge of Allegiance, and even non-Americans that greatly influenced our history like George Orwell and Albert Einstein were all socialists.

I will concede the point that socialism has helped shape the America we have today.
I will continue along that concession that the very same socialism you seem to champion is exactly why we have the burgeoning debt crisis, entitlement mentality, welfare explosion and increasing real unemployment and under employment.
You seem to want to declare that as a victory for socialism. I see it as socialism's inherent evil as a basis for a political or economic system.

Case in point. As China has slowly moved towards a more capitalistic economic model, they are gaining in economic power. As we move away from it, we are losing economic power.

Coincidence?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
James Madison

BadCat
11-12-2010, 06:11 PM
""Of course there is a class war, but it's my class, the rich class, that is waging the war, and we're winning.""

- Warren Buffet

How much per year do you define as "rich"?

You REALLY think a couple making $250K a year is RICH??

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 07:00 PM
You could have stopped right there. You believe that theft is a right retained by the majority against the minority, plain and simple.



For starters, life isn't fair, it never has been and it will never be.

Okay.


Secondly, a system of wealth and material generation that didn't either exploit or employ labor has never, ever been produced.

A cure for cancer has never been produced, should we stop trying?

Affordable energy alternatives have not been produced, should we stop trying?

If at first you don't succeed, give up and deal with what you got?


Do you think Castro's wealth doesn't come from the exploitation of Cuban labor? Do you think Chavez doesn't exploit Venezuelans, or that Lenin didn't exploit Russians? Your system of fairness, throughout history has only brought misery, a lower standard of living, and unnecessary death.

Cuba, Russia, China, they all did things their own way. They are not "my way".


The historical record is crystal clear on this point. The introduction of profit is what saved mankind from feudal, tribal or dictatorial systems and the free market is what delivered the standard of living westernized countries enjoy today. History takes your idea of "fair" and chews it up, and spits out because your idea of fair gets people killed by the millions.

Our system kills millions as well. We're not getting anywhere.




So, you are basically saying that the top 2% in this country are so much smarter, and so much more charming that it's almost magical they can dupe their employees into being exploited by their own free will?

It's called ideology. The values, beliefs, and accepted natural reality of the general population are those of the ruling class, and reinforce the status quo.




That's quite a retarded world view, and not one that I've encountered before.

You've never heard of how ideology functions to legitimize a power structure?



If the owner of my company, who's a multimillionaire by the way, can turn a profit of what I produce, then more power to him, so long as I'm fairly compensated for my time and talents. I am fairly, even generously, compensated.

http://imgur.com/9Z174.jpg

That's very nice of him to give you a fraction of your labor value.






Surplus labor value? I'm pretty sure you can't even convince yourself your believe in this nonsense anymore. First of all, there is no such thing as surplus labor value. The value of labor is what price it will fetch at market, and that is all there is to it. If a contractor hires laborers to dig ditches and he can find laborers who will agree to dig the ditches for $10 an hour, even though the contractor is going to make hundreds of thousands off the building those ditches are going to provide the foundation for, then guess what? That labor has a value of $10 an hour, and no more. That labor's value isn't based on the contract price of the building, it's not based on the wealth of the contractor, or the person who hired him. That labor value is based on free market actors making decisions which better their positions and standards of living. If the contractor can't find a laborer for $10 an hour, he'll have to go up to $11, or $15, and that is how the value of labor is determined. The value of labor is not based on the final value of the product, the final value of the product is what price it will fetch at market, not the combined value of labor going into the product. That's an economic fact, not a moonbat dream.

No let me explain this. There's a difference between the value of labor and surplus labor. You are describing the value of labor as a commodity. However, you must remember that labor is the zero-point commodity, it is the necessary most basic commodity.

wealth can be many things but in short money is the abstraction of labor. all items or goods or services are produced, performed, or obtained via labor. the value is something is a combination of it's use-value determined by demand and also the cost of labor. labor used to produce a good is what imparts it's additional value, it's the basic commodity traded and that which is necessary for all others to be produced, and keeping a portion of that labor cost for yourself is profit. a system of power like our own over time will accumulate abstracted labor force in the form of monitary wealth. this is why technological innovations , measured in how many man-hours they could output, were the basis of the explosion of wealth in the last century and a half, allowing for more man-hours (or labor) to be abstracted from individual workers (who shifted the their labor onto manning machines, for longer periods of time and for even less pay).

Employers pay their workers what it takes for them to keep working, and the rest of their labor goes directly to the employer, it's unpaid labor. If someone pays me $5 to make a thing, and then they declare that the value of that thing is $10, where did that extra $5 come from? It came from me, I imparted the value onto it, and my employer only pays me for part of my labor while keeping the rest for himself and calling it "profit".

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 07:03 PM
The laborers did not "create" the wealth of the employers, and you are stretching your world view very, very thin if you expect anyone other than one of the few Marxist moonbats left in this world to agree with you. Did the laborer pouring the ore create the wealth that Carnagie steel amassed? If so how?

Yes. Because the wealth of Carnagie steel was the steel itself. The person digging the ore, pouring it, forming it, casting it, and so on are the ones producing the wealth of Carnagie Steel, because their wealth is in the form of Steel.

You are confusing wealth with "money". Money is nothing, it's totally abstract, it's just paper. All money is, is the abstraction of labor force, money is how much unpaid labor you've extracted from a worker. Money is the ability to utilize labor. Money is labor force as a symbol.

Money on it's own is nothing but paper.



I'd hate to break it to you, but making the steel did not create the wealth. Bringing the steel to a market hungry for it, and willing to pay for it, is what created Carnagie's wealth.

Do you mean the people who drove it to the market? Or do you mean the salesmen who contact buyers all over the country?


If that laborer had poured ore all day, every day for 30 years, and Carnagie couldn't sell an ounce of the stuff, then under your world view, the ore pourer's labor is worthless isn't it?

If the laborer poured all day for 30 years, he'd have 30 years worth of steel that he should keep and use as he sees fit. If a group of laborers did it, they should all have it.

But you're saying they can't sell an ounce of it? Well....firstly, you don't need a guy at the top to sell a thing. If there is demand for a product, it practically sells itself, especially something like steel.

So are you asking, what if a worker spent their life pouring ore and they have no use for it themselves and there is no demand for it in society? That's just absurd, why would someone do that? The steel he produced is still worth the labor he put into it, and if someone wanted to buy it, they would have to pay the value of the labor put into it, but if there's no demand there's no point at all.



Even though Carnagie built the enterprise, infrastructure and logistics necessary to bring steel to a market which demanded it, his labor, vision and risk, are worth no more than the guy pouring ore out of a furnace?

No, not one guy pouring ore. The entirety of all of the workers who built the infrastructure, who managed the workers, who drove the trucks, who delivered the materials. Everyone.



Without Carnagie's infrastructure, that laborer wouldn't have ore to pour or a furnace to pour it from, and there are many cities, railroads, and bridges that stand testament to the fact that Carnagie's steel pipeline was worth much, much more than the man pouring the ore.

Carnagie could have put all of his skill and intellect to good use, working in planning and organizing, without being a capitalist. Do you believe that it's only the head of a company that makes it run? That's ridiculous.





Time for another basic civics lesson is it? The American form of government is not an 'arm of the people'.

The government should be one of the people, for the people, by the people.


A proper government

What makes it "proper" rather than "your preferred"?


applies laws equally to protect the individuals whom are governed from force and fraud.

At which point in our American history were all individuals were treated equally under the law?


This provides an equal and level field of opportunity in which a single individual may increase his wealth, his quality of life, and standard of living through enterprise, employment, or whatever legal means an individual can conjure.

That's a fantasy. While we do have more social mobility than other nations, the myth of a "level playing field" is just silly. I'm sorry but get 100 random lower income newborns and 100 random upper-middle income newborns and see how they develop. What is your explanation for what would be the obvious result?



I don't know where you want to live, but in America the promise is equal footing at the starting line, not an equal finish.

The myth is of equal footing at the starting line.

I'm all for that. I'm not a proponent of everyone having equal everything either.



Would you support a serf revolution in a socialist society? The serfs do all the work, which the government claims as it's own, as well all the fruits of the serf's labor. The government doles out a barely-living wage, based on the decisions of a few on an appropriations committee, just enough for the serfs to keep working. In this system, the government owns the land, it's theirs, so is it improper for the serfs to "steal" this land? Is it improper for the serfs to say the fruits of their labor should belong to he who does the labor?


Yes I would support a serf revolution in a Stalinist society.

Again you are confusing centrally-organized authoritarian Communism with Democratically-based Socialism. Please at least wikipedia these things.

Now, could you answer the question? Would you support such a serf revolution in feudalism?




See what I did there? The kind of society you advocate is exactly like a feudal system, only with a tyrannical government replacing the feudal lords.

No it's not. The kind of society I've never advocated which you seem to really want me to advocate (Stalinist USSR) is similar to feudalism only in oppression, but Feudalism was based on the principle of privately-owned property, and so is Capitalism.


Your labor is the product of your time and talents. Carnagie spent the time and had the talent to build an empire out of steel manufacture. Isn't he then just as entitled to the fruits of his labor

The fruits of his labor, yes. The problem is when he uses someone else's labor and doesn't pay them their for it, and keeps a portion for himself simply because his name is on a piece of paper. He doesn't have to work any harder or sweat any more drops or produce anything more, his name on a paper means he can take a worker's labor and give them back abstracted labor (money), but less than the worker put in.

The capitalist always gets more than he puts in, because he takes it from others. The laborer gets back less than he puts in


, or is he disqualified because he was too talented and got too rich?

Not at all. Ideally talented and intelligent people should be in positions of management or other areas suited to their special skills and they should be paid appropriately.



When it all boils down, your only argument is class warfare, it's kind of a sad argument because it will never hold up to logic.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning. "

-Warren Buffet




I think I just demonstrated the fact that socialism is much, much closer to feudalism than capitalism will ever be.

No you keep confusing what socialism is, you're just collapsing all anti-capitalist movements into one blanket and just picking and choosing which criticisms of various systems to use.


I agree with your assumption that social mobility is overstated in America, however, keep in mind that social mobility has decreased as governmental influence, welfare, and regulation has increased.

Also during that time labor unions lost power, both political parties have sided with wall street, and tax cuts for the wealthy have decreased to their lowest rates.

Correlations buddy, there's a lot of them.


The next time you hear about a proposed minimum wage hike, remember that's going to mean fewer jobs in the marketplace, which means a student won't be able to find a job to finish school, which means less social mobility. The next time you read about a cash for clunkers program, remember that it's going to shrink the supply and increase the prices of used vehicles, meaning a working stiff may not be able to take that higher paying job a few miles away because he's been priced out of buying a more reliable car. Think about what a determent to social mobility a system like Cap & Trade will be when every single thing that requires energy will cost more thus reducing disposable income that might be used for higher learning, retirement investment, or opening a small business.

This is why instead of doing any one thing (which inevitable results in side effects), we need to do a network of things which compliment each other and help resolve each other's unintended consequences.

There is no realistic unilateral approach to labor-business relations.

BadCat
11-12-2010, 07:04 PM
Employers pay their workers what it takes for them to keep working, and the rest of their labor goes directly to the employer, it's unpaid labor. If someone pays me $5 to make a thing, and then they declare that the value of that thing is $10, where did that extra $5 come from? It came from me, I imparted the value onto it, and my employer only pays me for part of my labor while keeping the rest for himself and calling it "profit".


You just proved to us that you've never had a job.

Where did that extra $5 come from? Business expenses, rent, employee benefits, research and development, distribution costs, advertising costs....etc. etc.

It sure as shit didn't come from you.

Rockntractor
11-12-2010, 07:07 PM
You just proved to us that you've never had a job.

Where did that extra $5 come from? Business expenses, rent, employee benefits, research and development, distribution costs, advertising costs....etc. etc.

It sure as shit didn't come from you.
He is a professional troll, he gets paid for posting here. Probably with our tax dollars.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 07:09 PM
How much per year do you define as "rich"?

You REALLY think a couple making $250K a year is RICH??

Most of my posting about the wealthy are talking about billionaires, the very top few percent who actually run the government with their extraordinarily powerful influence.

A couple making $250K a year is pretty well off. They are rich by old standards. They aren't going to starve any time soon and their kids will have all the benefits of upperclass lifestyles.

They aren't wealthy, they aren't super powerful, they just have a lot of money.

Tax cuts on people making over $250K (and remember, the taxes are only on your income ABOVE that amount, not the entire amount, so someone making $300K would not have that entire 300k taxed at a higher rate, they'd only have the 50k above the 250k taxed at a higher rate.

So in terms of taxation, this really only affects people who make significantly MORE than $250k, I know fox news loves to tell everyone that anyone making a dollar over $250k is going to pay higher taxes but they'll only pay that tax rate on that one dollar over.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2010, 07:33 PM
You just proved to us that you've never had a job.

Where did that extra $5 come from? Business expenses, rent, employee benefits, research and development, distribution costs, advertising costs....etc. etc.

It sure as shit didn't come from you.

I tried to keep it to a single thing and a really cheap product, hopefully implying that this is a small scale operation.

Yes there are always overhead costs, this goes into it. Most of these overhead costs are in fact partial labor costs from another company (gotta pay the delivery guy to bring your materials to you).

Rent? hahhaha fuck landlords.

I'm not talking about $5 that was part of the cost in producing the good (which includes overhead costs), I'm talking about the profit margin.

Let's just throw some easy numbers out there - a thing is sold for $100, your salesman gets a cut, $20. Overhead costs, materials, ect. per unit are about another $20. Payroll and benefits and all other labor is $35. The market value of your item is $100, people can and do pay that much for it. So, if when buying that product, what do they pay for?

Well they pay for the materials and overhead costs, they pay labor costs, they pay any taxes, they pay a little extra for the salesman commission, but that only comes out to $75.
What is the extra thing you are paying for? It's an economic scheme designed to take productive activity and use it to funnel wealth upwards.

Hawkgirl
11-12-2010, 08:55 PM
So what is your point? Business' shouldn't make a profit? LOL....if business' don't profit, they GO OUT OF BUSINESS...and there go the jobs!

Logic, try it.;)

Madisonian
11-12-2010, 08:58 PM
blah, blah, blather, rant, wax incoherently, etc.

Where to even begin with this espoused nonsense...

You said
"The steel he produced is still worth the labor he put into it, and if someone wanted to buy it, they would have to pay the value of the labor put into it, but if there's no demand there's no point at all."

The value of any good or service is what the consumer of that good or service will pay, period.
If McDonald's pays their employees such that the labor content is $10.00 for a hamburger, it does not make its "worth" $10.00, it makes its cost $10.00. If the market will only pay $2.00 for the burger, then that is all it is worth and the other $8.00 is a loss to the business.

"The fruits of his labor, yes. The problem is when he uses someone else's labor and doesn't pay them their for it, and keeps a portion for himself simply because his name is on a piece of paper. He doesn't have to work any harder or sweat any more drops or produce anything more, his name on a paper means he can take a worker's labor and give them back abstracted labor (money), but less than the worker put in. "
and then
"Ideally talented and intelligent people should be in positions of management or other areas suited to their special skills and they should be paid appropriately."

These statements contradict each other. As the talented, intelligent, risk taking owner, he is paying himself as he sees appropriate. For many small businesses when they first start up, the business owner makes less than the employees and works and sweats much harder for more hours. In a business I owned with my wife some years ago, we put collectively over 100 hours a week into it and did not draw a paycheck for the first 18 months. We lived off of our savings until we started to turn that nasty thing you call a profit.
For most businesses when they first start, they actually lose money for a period of time. Those cherished employees are not losing sleep at night while the owner tries to figure out how to make payroll, loan repayments or meet the other costs of doing business.

Let me guess, you have never risked losing everything you own in opening your own business.

Rockntractor
11-12-2010, 09:12 PM
Where to even begin with this espoused nonsense...

You said
"The steel he produced is still worth the labor he put into it, and if someone wanted to buy it, they would have to pay the value of the labor put into it, but if there's no demand there's no point at all."

The value of any good or service is what the consumer of that good or service will pay, period.
If McDonald's pays their employees such that the labor content is $10.00 for a hamburger, it does not make its "worth" $10.00, it makes its cost $10.00. If the market will only pay $2.00 for the burger, then that is all it is worth and the other $8.00 is a loss to the business.

"The fruits of his labor, yes. The problem is when he uses someone else's labor and doesn't pay them their for it, and keeps a portion for himself simply because his name is on a piece of paper. He doesn't have to work any harder or sweat any more drops or produce anything more, his name on a paper means he can take a worker's labor and give them back abstracted labor (money), but less than the worker put in. "
and then
"Ideally talented and intelligent people should be in positions of management or other areas suited to their special skills and they should be paid appropriately."

These statements contradict each other. As the talented, intelligent, risk taking owner, he is paying himself as he sees appropriate. For many small businesses when they first start up, the business owner makes less than the employees and works and sweats much harder for more hours. In a business I owned with my wife some years ago, we put collectively over 100 hours a week into it and did not draw a paycheck for the first 18 months. We lived off of our savings until we started to turn that nasty thing you call a profit.
For most businesses when they first start, they actually lose money for a period of time. Those cherished employees are not losing sleep at night while the owner tries to figure out how to make payroll, loan repayments or meet the other costs of doing business.

Let me guess, you have never risked losing everything you own in opening your own business.
He is an admitted communist.

Jfor
11-12-2010, 09:33 PM
I'll make it real clear for you weewee. I refuse to be the same as somebody next door. I work hard to pay for ym toys and I'll be damned if some little commie punk bastard like you can even get close to taking it from me.

AmPat
11-12-2010, 09:51 PM
You just proved to us that you've never had a job.

Where did that extra $5 come from? Business expenses, rent, employee benefits, research and development, distribution costs, advertising costs....etc. etc.

It sure as shit didn't come from you.

You left out risk.

Weitard believes that workers spontaneously assemble in a certain locale, buildings mysteriously appear,fully equipped with the right machinery, and widgets get manufactured by magic fairy dust. The bosses swoop in after a day at the club and "steal" the worker's largess that was made by these noble workers, mysterious, fully equipped buildings and magic dust.

Lager
11-12-2010, 10:21 PM
""Of course there is a class war, but it's my class, the rich class, that is waging the war, and we're winning.""

- Warren Buffet

Yes, I've seen that quote the several times you've posted it. It's one of the more foolish things I've heard the so called genius say. Anyway, I'm still trying to follow how he and Gates made their fortunes off of the surplus labor of thousands.

BadCat
11-13-2010, 08:54 AM
I tried to keep it to a single thing and a really cheap product, hopefully implying that this is a small scale operation.

Yes there are always overhead costs, this goes into it. Most of these overhead costs are in fact partial labor costs from another company (gotta pay the delivery guy to bring your materials to you).

Rent? hahhaha fuck landlords.

I'm not talking about $5 that was part of the cost in producing the good (which includes overhead costs), I'm talking about the profit margin.

Let's just throw some easy numbers out there - a thing is sold for $100, your salesman gets a cut, $20. Overhead costs, materials, ect. per unit are about another $20. Payroll and benefits and all other labor is $35. The market value of your item is $100, people can and do pay that much for it. So, if when buying that product, what do they pay for?

Well they pay for the materials and overhead costs, they pay labor costs, they pay any taxes, they pay a little extra for the salesman commission, but that only comes out to $75.
What is the extra thing you are paying for? It's an economic scheme designed to take productive activity and use it to funnel wealth upwards.

You are a real communist aren't you?
You proved it in this thread..you also proved (yet again) you are a clueless idiot.

Adam Wood
11-13-2010, 10:37 AM
I see several problems with them coming out and saying this.

First up is the House. This has to make it through Pelosi's House, Reps. won't take control for about 2 more months. That means that the house Dems, many packing to leave must agree and pass it first. If they don't agree to a full extension, then it doesn't happen.

Second up is the Senate. Reid and the Dems there, with some packing to leave must agree and pass it first as well. If they don't agree to a full extension, then it doesn't happen.

Then it once it gets the majority vote in a finial bill, then it makes it way to obumble, who his admin staffers (Note not him) has only 'Suggested' obumble may agree to full extensions for every one. He could punt, pass or veto. Hoping to cause it to fail and try and blame Rep. for its failure pointing to some part he doesn't like as reason for not passing it.

If it isn't passed within the next couple of weeks, we are all screwed and every one will see massive tax increases soon. Even those hurting most. And that is during a Dem controlled congress of both houses, not GOP.I wouldn't panic too much about that. Even if we get well into 2011, the House can still repeal the tax increase retroactively. That's what they did in 2003, IIRC.


* miles and miles of incessant blather snipped *

Wee Wee, for all of your incessant envy-based blather about how downtrodden "labor" is, you steadfastly refuse to accept the simple, basic fact that all labor is performed under a contract. If someone contracts to work at $5/hour to work in that steel mill, then that's what they chose to do. If the owner of that mill is actually getting $500/hour worth of work out of that person, then so be it. And, if the owner is only getting $1/hour worth of work out of that person, then so be it. Each of them, the worker and the owner, entered into an agreement, usually a mutually-beneficial one. If you don't like working at $5/hour because the boss is getting $500/hour out of you, then re-negotiate the contract, and if that won't work, then walk the fuck away and start your own damn business.




It never ceases to amaze me how much the envy-blinded, emotionally-driven socialists manage to so completely either fail to understand or else outright lie about the very nature of capitalism, the natural system of commerce that has existed since man's first days on earth.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:13 PM
So what is your point? Business' shouldn't make a profit? LOL....if business' don't profit, they GO OUT OF BUSINESS...and there go the jobs!

Logic, try it.;)

http://imgur.com/9Z174.jpg

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 01:22 PM
http://imgur.com/9Z174.jpg

Oh yes commie comics!
For you and Obamie the commie!

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:27 PM
The value of any good or service is what the consumer of that good or service will pay, period.
If McDonald's pays their employees such that the labor content is $10.00 for a hamburger, it does not make its "worth" $10.00, it makes its cost $10.00. If the market will only pay $2.00 for the burger, then that is all it is worth and the other $8.00 is a loss to the business.

This is the perfect example of Commodity Fetishism.



These statements contradict each other. As the talented, intelligent, risk taking owner, he is paying himself as he sees appropriate. For many small businesses when they first start up, the business owner makes less than the employees and works and sweats much harder for more hours. In a business I owned with my wife some years ago, we put collectively over 100 hours a week into it and did not draw a paycheck for the first 18 months. We lived off of our savings until we started to turn that nasty thing you call a profit.
For most businesses when they first start, they actually lose money for a period of time. Those cherished employees are not losing sleep at night while the owner tries to figure out how to make payroll, loan repayments or meet the other costs of doing business.

Let me guess, you have never risked losing everything you own in opening your own business.

Firstly, when I talk about this stuff I usually support small business owners. It's the capitalist class that I have a problem with.

Small Business owners do a lot of work ,they get their hands dirty, they should get paid.

In systems I have described before, systems which do already exist and function well today, you can have workers' cooperatives. In these systems, a man can still have an idea for a business, except the government makes it even EASIER for them to start a business. They fund them and offer them unemployment checks while their business is still turning profitable. They offer administrative assistance and other help. However, the guy with the idea can become part of the cooperative, without having to take on a ton of risk himself, and he can work as part of the group, as a member of the democratically-run business.

It works. It's better for the guy who comes up with the idea. It's better for the workers. A happy workplace where everyone cares about what they do because it is their's means the quality of the products go up.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:32 PM
I'll make it real clear for you weewee. I refuse to be the same as somebody next door. I work hard to pay for ym toys and I'll be damned if some little commie punk bastard like you can even get close to taking it from me.

DO you hate your neighbor or something? What if you and your neighbor decided to make a giant garden plot, bigger than either of you could manage affordably, and you both put work and alternating shifts to get it to work and after a season you have a ton of extra fresh delicious produce, and you can both divide it up and enjoy more than either of you could have done alone/.

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 01:33 PM
Small Business owners do a lot of work ,they get their hands dirty, they should get paid.



Small Business are being hurt the most by Obama and the Democrat socialists.

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 01:36 PM
DO you hate your neighbor or something? What if you and your neighbor decided to make a giant garden plot, bigger than either of you could manage affordably, and you both put work and alternating shifts to get it to work and after a season you have a ton of extra fresh delicious produce, and you can both divide it up and enjoy more than either of you could have done alone/.

With communism , government trucks would drive up and take the to mens produce and divide it up among party members and if the two gardeners complained they would be shot and buried in their garden.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:41 PM
You left out risk.

Weitard believes that workers spontaneously assemble in a certain locale, buildings mysteriously appear,

Other workers build buildings.


fully equipped with the right machinery

They make and man the machines too.


, and widgets get manufactured by magic fairy dust.

Yep and the widgets.


The bosses swoop in after a day at the club and "steal" the worker's largess that was made by these noble workers, mysterious, fully equipped buildings and magic dust.

workers, more workers, and more workers

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:41 PM
With communism , government trucks would drive up and take the to mens produce and divide it up among party members and if the two gardeners complained they would be shot and buried in their garden.

Good Thing That No One Is Advocating Soviet State Communism

Adam Wood
11-13-2010, 01:46 PM
This is the perfect example of Commodity Fetishism.Says the one who thinks that the steel worker, who didn't buy the forge or pay for the coal to melt the steel or pay for any of the forms or equipment to mold that steel, should get to keep that steel ingot to sell for himself after using someone else's equipment to create that wealth.

How typical. Everything is based entirely in envy with Leftists. Nothing new under the sun.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:46 PM
I wouldn't panic too much about that. Even if we get well into 2011, the House can still repeal the tax increase retroactively. That's what they did in 2003, IIRC.



Wee Wee, for all of your incessant envy-based blather about how downtrodden "labor" is, you steadfastly refuse to accept the simple, basic fact that all labor is performed under a contract. If someone contracts to work at $5/hour to work in that steel mill, then that's what they chose to do. If the owner of that mill is actually getting $500/hour worth of work out of that person, then so be it. And, if the owner is only getting $1/hour worth of work out of that person, then so be it. Each of them, the worker and the owner, entered into an agreement, usually a mutually-beneficial one. If you don't like working at $5/hour because the boss is getting $500/hour out of you, then re-negotiate the contract, and if that won't work, then walk the fuck away and start your own damn business.

What if someone wants to work for a living, just a hard days work and getting the fruits of their labor? They don't want to be rich, they don't want to turn around and exploit other workers. Is there no dignity in your own hard work?





It never ceases to amaze me how much the envy-blinded, emotionally-driven socialists manage to so completely either fail to understand or else outright lie about the very nature of capitalism, the natural system of commerce that has existed since man's first days on earth.

What are you talking about? The very first organizations of humans were closer to Communes than anything else. They divided up labor in hunter-gatherer societies, pooled their resources, so that even if Joe The Hunter didn't have a good hunt this weekend his children can still eat, and when Mary the Gatherer has a hard time picking fruits during a drought, her children can still eat. It benefited everyone.

Capitalism requires a complex legal system, courts, property laws, all this. This came only after thousands of years of people hoarding resources for themselves and dolling out table scraps for the people that do the work to produce it all.

Adam Wood
11-13-2010, 01:51 PM
What if someone wants to work for a living, just a hard days work and getting the fruits of their labor? They don't want to be rich, they don't want to turn around and exploit other workers. Is there no dignity in your own hard work?Of course there is dignity in that. I never said anything to the contrary; in fact, I advocated exactly that.


What are you talking about? The very first organizations of humans were closer to Communes than anything else. They divided up labor in hunter-gatherer societies, pooled their resources, so that even if Joe The Hunter didn't have a good hunt this weekend his children can still eat, and when Mary the Gatherer has a hard time picking fruits during a drought, her children can still eat. It benefited everyone.
Horseshit. Take your revisionist history and shove it up your ass. Human society has relied upon mutually-beneficial trade since we came down out of the trees. Any claim to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.


Capitalism requires a complex legal system, courts, property laws, all this. This came only after thousands of years of people hoarding resources for themselves and dolling out table scraps for the people that do the work to produce it all.BS. Yet another Leftist lie. More historical revisionism. Mutually-beneficial trade has happened from LONG before there were complex (or even simple) legal or court systems.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:55 PM
Says the one who thinks that the steel worker, who didn't buy the forge or pay for the coal to melt the steel or pay for any of the forms or equipment to mold that steel, should get to keep that steel ingot to sell for himself after using someone else's equipment to create that wealth.

How typical. Everything is based entirely in envy with Leftists. Nothing new under the sun.

The Land Belongs to He that Tolls it.
The Fruit Belongs to He that Grows it.

Again, I ask what hasn't been answered. Within Feudalism, all the land was owned by Lords, Serfs could still work, they could still make money, they could still live their lives if they were willing to just work.

The land was the Lords, the fruits of the Serfs labor was the Lords, but the Lord gave enough back to the serf to keep him from starving and sometimes even a little more.

It was rare to change classes, but it was possible (military service was huge for this).


Would you call it stealing if a group of serfs took over the land that they've been working for years and claimed the fruits of their labor as their own?

Would you support such a revolution? Why or why not?

The Property Laws are on the side of the Lords

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 01:56 PM
Of course there is dignity in that. I never said anything to the contrary; in fact, I advocated exactly that.


Horseshit. Take your revisionist history and shove it up your ass. Human society has relied upon mutually-beneficial trade since we came down out of the trees. Any claim to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.

BS. Yet another Leftist lie. More historical revisionism. Mutually-beneficial trade has happened from LONG before there were complex (or even simple) legal or court systems.

Maybe I'm wrong but you seem to be confusing Capitalism with a Barter System

Adam Wood
11-13-2010, 01:59 PM
The Land Belongs to He that Tolls it.
The Fruit Belongs to He that Grows it.

Again, I ask what hasn't been answered. Within Feudalism, all the land was owned by Lords, Serfs could still work, they could still make money, they could still live their lives if they were willing to just work.

The land was the Lords, the fruits of the Serfs labor was the Lords, but the Lord gave enough back to the serf to keep him from starving and sometimes even a little more.

It was rare to change classes, but it was possible (military service was huge for this).


Would you call it stealing if a group of serfs took over the land that they've been working for years and claimed the fruits of their labor as their own?

Would you support such a revolution? Why or why not?

The Property Laws are on the side of the LordsThe United States isn't serfdom.

Now clean up all that straw off the floor from that strawman you killed.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 02:01 PM
Never said it was, and the first time I brought up this example I was clear to point that out because I knew someone would swoop in to point out that A Thing and Another Thing are not the Exact Same Thing

I'm not asking about the US, I'm asking about what I asked about.

AmPat
11-13-2010, 02:02 PM
What if someone wants to work for a living, just a hard days work and getting the fruits of their labor? They don't want to be rich, they don't want to turn around and exploit other workers. Is there no dignity in your own hard work?
Let him work. As long as he understands he is working FOR somebody else. That he is working IN somebody elses building. Making SOMEBODY elses product. FOR an agreed upon sum.


What are you talking about? The very first organizations of humans were closer to Communes than anything else. They divided up labor in hunter-gatherer societies, pooled their resources, so that even if Joe The Hunter didn't have a good hunt this weekend his children can still eat, and when Mary the Gatherer has a hard time picking fruits during a drought, her children can still eat. It benefited everyone.
In your completely made up scenario, the fruits of the collective labor would have NEVER been shared with the lazy SOB or effeminate cave man who sat back at the cave awaiting the arrival of the hunting party.

Capitalism requires a complex legal system, courts, property laws, all this. This came only after thousands of years of people hoarding resources for themselves and dolling out table scraps for the people that do the work to produce it all.BS.If you don't like the "scraps" that have enriched ALL of us, leave, start your own business. Make your own clothes, cars, toasters, etc.

A high tide raises all boats. You have been given the best living conditions this world has ever known and it is because of the freedom you had NOTHING to do with, and that freedom led to capitalism that led to cheap, useful, desirable products. Those products are affordable even to those "poor, downtrodden slaves" who made the product for those evil tyrannical bosses who paid them their agreed wages in return, which led to their ability to buy those evil products.

hampshirebrit
11-13-2010, 05:17 PM
I usually support small business owners. It's the capitalist class that I have a problem with.

Small Business owners do a lot of work ,they get their hands dirty, they should get paid.


So you support small business owners, you just don't like capitalists. Let's run with this one for a while.

OK, would you support the view that, generally, the goal of the small business owner is to become the owner of a larger business? Let's assume you would agree with this... it's difficult to disagree.

If they are successful in this, then at some point or another, depending on the business model in place and its success, they will make the transition from being a small business owner to a capitalist. In fact, it may be that, for a time, they enjoy some kind of hybrid existence, being both one and the other.

Who is it that, in your view, would be qualified to make the distinction and thus determine and levy what, to you, would be the appropriate penalties for such a transition? What qualifications would this individual require to make the distinction?

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 05:29 PM
So you support small business owners, you just don't like capitalists. Let's run with this one for a while.

OK, would you support the view that, generally, the goal of the small business owner is to become the owner of a larger business? Let's assume you would agree with this... it's difficult to disagree.

If they are successful in this, then at some point or another, depending on the business model in place and its success, they will make the transition from being a small business owner to a capitalist. In fact, it may be that, for a time, they enjoy some kind of hybrid existence, being both one and the other.

Who is it that, in your view, would be qualified to make the distinction and thus determine and levy what, to you, would be the appropriate penalties for such a transition? What qualifications would this individual require to make the distinction?

I make the distinction because I'm realistic. I know we live in an neo-capitalist society with two capitalist parties. Practically speaking, I support small business owners because they aren't extremely wealthy, they work very hard, they create good jobs for Americans, and they provide competition against the real bad guys.

I realize that small business owners also get screwed over by the wealthy elite.

I'm not making any rigid ideological statements or anything of that sort, just that practically speaking in today's reality I would support measures that benefit working Americans, the lower and middle class, and small business owners, rather than those that benefit the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else.


Oh as for the small business owner who becomes more and more successful, the more that you benefit from the system in place, the more you should put back into that system. I'm totally comfortable with high progressive taxation.

hampshirebrit
11-13-2010, 05:32 PM
I make the distinction because I'm realistic. I know we live in an neo-capitalist society with two capitalist parties. Practically speaking, I support small business owners because they aren't extremely wealthy, they work very hard, they create good jobs for Americans, and they provide competition against the real bad guys. .

It still begs the question I asked you earlier, which is, who gets to decide when a small business owner has crossed the threshold into being a capitalist?

I asked you in the previous post, what qualifications would the person making such judgements need to have?

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 05:47 PM
Depends on what we're talking about. Of course the distinctions will be somewhat arbitrary but I'm okay with business employing less than 20 people getting some breaks, employing less than 100 getting other breaks.

This sort of thing is pointless unless we are talking about specific policies. In general my sentiments are against the wealthy Capitalist class, not hard-working entrepeneurs. For more specifics, I'd need a specific topic or situation.

hampshirebrit
11-13-2010, 06:05 PM
Depends on what we're talking about. Of course the distinctions will be somewhat arbitrary but I'm okay with business employing less than 20 people getting some breaks, employing less than 100 getting other breaks.

This sort of thing is pointless unless we are talking about specific policies. In general my sentiments are against the wealthy Capitalist class, not hard-working entrepeneurs. For more specifics, I'd need a specific topic or situation.

You're still missing the point, though. The fallacy of your argument lies in the fact that it makes the assumption that there is a line to be drawn between a small business owner (by your own ruling, one with < 20 employees getting some breaks, one with <100 employees getting others) and a capitalist.

Under your arrangement, someone has to be qualified and then empowered to make such distinctions.

I ask you again, what qualifications would such a person need to be granted this level of authority?

Don't you run the very real risk of giving such a person, even if qualified, an unacceptable level of power over the lives of others?

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 06:15 PM
You're still missing the point, though. The fallacy of your argument lies in the fact that it makes the assumption that there is a line to be drawn between a small business owner (by your own ruling, one with < 20 employees getting some breaks, one with <100 employees getting others) and a capitalist.

Under your arrangement, someone has to be qualified and then empowered to make such distinctions.

I ask you again, what qualifications would such a person need to be granted this level of authority?

Don't you run the very real risk of giving such a person, even if qualified, an unacceptable level of power over the lives of others?

There isn't a clear line between them, it's a fuzzy and ambiguous one and the people near the arbitrarily drawn line will not be happy.

This is the case in all things, the same applies for the poverty rate, which is an arbitrarily determined number from the 50's and which determines where federal dollars go.

If you're asking me to draw a hard ideological line I cannot do it because small business owners are a compromise, given the current reality. More radically there wouldn't be "owners" of small businesses, ideally, small business owners would simply be the idea men, they wouldn't have to fork up tons of their own capital upfront as risk, instead their company can get assistance while it's still turning a profit. The man who came up with the idea would be another worker/partner along with any other people who want to operate the business with him. He'd likely be a high level worker perhaps a manager or something of that sort, but he wouldn't have to carry all the risk of starting a business himself, which actually makes start-up entrepreneurship easier. Of course he wouldn't be the "owner" but rather another partner in the company but without having to risk his own ass to do it he's able to bring his idea into fruition in a less risky and more fair manner in which his workers/partners all own the company together.

I understand that you feel if someone forks up cash to start a business then they should own it, and I get that sentiment, but there are other ways to start businesses than the one we are used to.



However, given the current realities if I'm given an option that benefits the top 2% at the expense of everyone else, vs an option that helps working people, poor people, and hard-working small business men at the expense of the very wealthy I'd quite happily choose the latter.

Madisonian
11-13-2010, 06:56 PM
So tell me action without action, who's trough do you feed out of?
I don't think you have your own business as you don't seem to have the entrepreneurial spirit or expertise to run a lemonade stand.
My guess is that you are a true sucker of the fruits of others labor and are employed as a government employee of some type as you seem to have that union enabled civil servant mentality.
Community organizer or SEIU official would also seem to fit the bill.
Have you even worked at a real job that produces a tangible product?

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 07:15 PM
It's my job to make sure each grave is dug promptly and that the counterrevolutary bastard digging it crawls in.

Articulate_Ape
11-13-2010, 07:25 PM
It's my job to make sure each grave is dug promptly and that the counterrevolutary bastard digging it crawls in.

If you had a job, your world view would not be what it is.

AmPat
11-13-2010, 07:46 PM
I make the distinction because I'm realistic. I know we live in an neo-capitalist society with two capitalist parties. Practically speaking, I support small business owners because they aren't extremely wealthy, they work very hard, they create good jobs for Americans, and they provide competition against the real bad guys.

I realize that small business owners also get screwed over by the wealthy elite.

I'm not making any rigid ideological statements or anything of that sort, just that practically speaking in today's reality I would support measures that benefit working Americans, the lower and middle class, and small business owners, rather than those that benefit the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else.


Oh as for the small business owner who becomes more and more successful, the more that you benefit from the system in place, the more you should put back into that system. I'm totally comfortable with high progressive taxation.
Those "screwed over" small business owners use products made by those evil capitalists. Products such as desks, lamps,light bulbs, software, etc.

If they are so screwed, perhaps then you could tell us what alternatives exist to buying and using those evil products? Who "forced" the screwees to use these products? Maybe you believe that they should have all made their own desks, lightbulbs, computers, software, etc? Is this your answer?

Oh clueless one, the big corporations of this country have done more tangible good than perceived bad. You liberals are the ones who see them as bad, yet you cannot prove your point.

hampshirebrit
11-13-2010, 07:47 PM
If you're asking me to draw a hard ideological line I cannot do it

But I have not asked you to draw the line

Again you're missing the point behind my question, or more likely, ducking it altogether.

I think that the question is pivotal to this argument, and merits a proper response from you, or from anyone seriously positing such a means of ordering society, and so I shall ask it again: Who IS qualified to draw the line, and how would they be deemed qualified, and by who?

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 08:03 PM
Those "screwed over" small business owners use products made by those evil capitalists. Products such as desks, lamps,light bulbs, software, etc.

they are not made by capitalists they are made by the workers, the job of the capitalist isn't to make anything, it's to extract as much surplus labor as possible.

working people make things.




If they are so screwed, perhaps then you could tell us what alternatives exist to buying and using those evil products? Who "forced" the screwees to use these products?

You have to purchase food to eat. unless you have enough money to buy land you cannot grow your own food. Our system softly coerces people into purchasing things.


Maybe you believe that they should have all made their own desks, lightbulbs, computers, software, etc? Is this your answer?

No. Those desks and lightbulbs should all be made at their respective desk factories, cooperatively owned and operated.


Oh clueless one, the big corporations of this country have done more tangible good than perceived bad. You liberals are the ones who see them as bad, yet you cannot prove your point.

There's been good and bad that have come from the current state of big corporations.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 08:12 PM
hamps i think i am missing your point so i'll try to break down the original thing you posted and answer it piece by piece



OK, would you support the view that, generally, the goal of the small business owner is to become the owner of a larger business? Let's assume you would agree with this... it's difficult to disagree.

Generally speaking the goal of a business owner is to grow his business, yes.




If they are successful in this, then at some point or another, depending on the business model in place and its success, they will make the transition from being a small business owner to a capitalist. In fact, it may be that, for a time, they enjoy some kind of hybrid existence, being both one and the other.

Correct. It's easy to identify a small mom and pop shop as a small business, and it's easy to identify people who grace the cover of Forbes as Capitalists.

Between that it gets more blurry.



Who is it that, in your view, would be qualified to make the distinction and thus determine and levy what, to you, would be the appropriate penalties for such a transition?

No one person. Surely it would be met with great hostility, so in the absense of a radical overthrow of the power structure, it's not as if one person is going to make these decisions. More likely it'll be a back and forth between various interest groups representing various portions of the business spectrum as well as the labor and even the unemployed pool.

Who would make the distinction? I don't know, because I'm not proposing making any official distinction. I personally make a distinction between my strong ideals which ultimately lead to no single business owners at all, but I'm realistic and understand that real small business owners are FAR closer to the average American than what I consider the "Capitalist Class".

I only made the distinction for the sake of compromising what I consider ideal and what I consider realistic.

I imagine a bunch of people including academics, economists, business owners of all sizes, labor groups and more would all have a say at where to draw the line, not a person or not based on a simple rule or algorithm.


What qualifications would this individual require to make the distinction?

more than i've got

m00
11-13-2010, 08:27 PM
Wei Wu Wei seems to think that wealth creates itself.

AmPat
11-13-2010, 08:30 PM
[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;334523]they are not made by capitalists they are made by the workers, the job of the capitalist isn't to make anything, it's to extract as much surplus labor as possible.

working people make things.
And the job of the worker is to make the product he was hired to make at the factory OWNED by the person who had the idea, risked the capital, and had the drive to grow a business that produced worthy goods that people desired. The worker bees contracted to offer their time for the priviledge to work there making the product that they had no stake in. These workers ventured nothing in terms of risk or ideas. They are free to contract with another company. Before the worker was hired to trade his time for a paycheck making widgits dreamed up by somebody else, he wasn't making squat. If he decides to make a better widgit at home in his time risking his money, and people decide to buy his widget, he can then hire people to make HIS widgit.


You have to purchase food to eat. unless you have enough money to buy land you cannot grow your own food. Our system softly coerces people into purchasing things.
Good thing they have the money to do this huh? I wonder where they got this money? Hmmm, I know! At the evil company where the evil capitalist dwells.


No. Those desks and lightbulbs should all be made at their respective desk factories, cooperatively owned and operated. Strike up the Soviet Anthem.


There's been good and bad that have come from the current state of big corporations.]Next time you travel on a homemade airplane or use your home made oven or any other homemade product, remember those evil corporation built products.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 09:37 PM
[QUOTE]
And the job of the worker is to make the product he was hired to make at the factory OWNED by the person who had the idea, risked the capital, and had the drive to grow a business that produced worthy goods that people desired. The worker bees contracted to offer their time for the priviledge to work there making the product that they had no stake in. These workers ventured nothing in terms of risk or ideas. They are free to contract with another company. Before the worker was hired to trade his time for a paycheck making widgits dreamed up by somebody else, he wasn't making squat. If he decides to make a better widgit at home in his time risking his money, and people decide to buy his widget, he can then hire people to make HIS widgit.

I've already addressed the issue of personal investment and risk on the part of the owner. several times

also, what you are calling "growth" of business is also the steady growth of exploitation.

I think all people should be free to be able to work in a self-directed manner.



Good thing they have the money to do this huh? I wonder where they got this money?

Hmmm, I know! At the evil company where the evil capitalist dwells.


this is a tiny minute fraction of the population, with no accountability unlike politicians who can be voted out and with maximum influence because they can buy legislators or even have lobbyists write legislation.

you're right though, right, they provide us with everything. cars, food, clothes, music, even our news! all of the major industries, our transportation systems, almost everything and not only they they trade us cash that we can use to get all these things.

now if i asked you to imagine an a nation with a tiny portion of the population with that much power and influence and they are not held accountable to people in a democratically-based fashion (except sometimes you can purchase a vote on these elites, but the elites also buy votes and often own millions), you might think it was some internally-dictatorial-style neo-oligarchy, and it basically is.



Strike up the Soviet Anthem.

Next time you travel on a homemade airplane or use your home made oven or any other homemade product, remember those evil corporation built products.

No, their workers built the products. and other workers build the machines that the first workers used. corporations aren't really people, Supreme Court be damned.

Adam Wood
11-13-2010, 09:41 PM
Wei Wu Wei seems to think that wealth creates itself.Looks that way. That, or wealth is created by the government and doled out unfairly to the rich for some strange reason.

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 09:43 PM
[QUOTE=AmPat;334533]

I've already addressed the issue of personal investment and risk on the part of the owner. several times

also, what you are calling "growth" of business is also the steady growth of exploitation.

I think all people should be free to be able to work in a self-directed manner.





this is a tiny minute fraction of the population, with no accountability unlike politicians who can be voted out and with maximum influence because they can buy legislators or even have lobbyists write legislation.

you're right though, right, they provide us with everything. cars, food, clothes, music, even our news! all of the major industries, our transportation systems, almost everything and not only they they trade us cash that we can use to get all these things.

now if i asked you to imagine an a nation with a tiny portion of the population with that much power and influence and they are not held accountable to people in a democratically-based fashion (except sometimes you can purchase a vote on these elites, but the elites also buy votes and often own millions), you might think it was some internally-dictatorial-style neo-oligarchy, and it basically is.




No, their workers built the products. and other workers build the machines that the first workers used. corporations aren't really people, Supreme Court be damned.
Oh but you can vote them out and do by not buying products that don't appeal to you or by not taking jobs that don't appeal to you.
You may know Marx but you don't even know the basics of free enterprise, when it comes to capitalism you are functionally illiterate!

Lager
11-13-2010, 11:03 PM
However, given the current realities if I'm given an option that benefits the top 2% at the expense of everyone else, vs an option that helps working people, poor people, and hard-working small business men at the expense of the very wealthy I'd quite happily choose the latter.

Your argument seems like a vague generalization. Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of something that benefits the top 2 percent at the expense of everyone else.

Wei Wu Wei
11-13-2010, 11:12 PM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.

Rockntractor
11-13-2010, 11:16 PM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.

You have pretty much blown any credibility you have tonight, why don't you go post in the lounge or surf some porn or something!:rolleyes:

Adam Wood
11-14-2010, 03:16 AM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.You actually believe that all wealth belongs to the government, don't you?

Apocalypse
11-14-2010, 09:34 AM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.

Over 3 Trillion Dollars for tax cuts on the middle class, while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.

47% of all Americans pay nothing in Fed. Income taxes. That means that almost half of the people enjoying the fruits of the nation have no vested stake in how its wealth is spent. Why should people who don't pay in any thing, care if the nations wealth is wasted as it is?

hampshirebrit
11-14-2010, 10:31 AM
I only made the distinction for the sake of compromising what I consider ideal and what I consider realistic.

I imagine a bunch of people including academics, economists, business owners of all sizes, labor groups and more would all have a say at where to draw the line, not a person or not based on a simple rule or algorithm.

Thanks for the answer.

Under your scheme, there would come a point where a competently run small business would become large enough to be eligible for ownership to go to the workers, by which we can infer nationalisation and state ownership.

Under your scheme, the entry criteria would be decided by a committee of interested parties including "business owners of all sizes" (although the range of sizes would be by definition greatly diminished).

I think you probably have the inkling by now that your proposal would be entirely unworkable in practical terms. Every business owner would be under incentive to grow his business only to a maximum size that would not trigger the gateway criteria. If these criteria would be set flexibly (i.e. arbitrarily) by committee, then he would be better off not even starting the business in the first place, to avoid the risk of becoming a moving target. So, under your proposal, no small businesses, no new inventions, no job growth at all from the private sector.

Can you not see that not only is the idea non-workable, but also devoid of any real morality?

AmPat
11-14-2010, 10:51 AM
I think all people should be free to be able to work in a self-directed manner.This is exactly why the workers were idle before the evil businessman put them to work. Your idealism is cute,,,,,,,,,,,,,for a two year old. From you, it is pathetic.

I'd like to audit your classroom for a few days. I'd bet that you are a worthless teacher. Why don't you post some video of your instruction? It would probably be very entertaining.

Lager
11-14-2010, 10:52 AM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.

Here is where I find that argument misleading. First of all, there is the attempt to portray this as if the government took money out of the treasury that was garnered from the rest of us poor slobs and GAVE it to the very wealthy. While actually, the tax rates simply allowed them to keep more of their OWN money. Secondly, there is also the deliberate fostering of a misconception that their income group were the only ones who received cuts in their taxes. Conservatives have always advocated keeping taxes low on all taxpayers, not specifically the wealthy. If you, and those who agree with you wanted to make an honest argument about which levels of taxation should be implemented, let's do that. But do it without having to create false assumptions, misrepresenting conservative policy, and without encouraging class warfare.

Wei Wu Wei
11-14-2010, 10:56 AM
Thanks for the answer.

Under your scheme, there would come a point where a competently run small business would become large enough to be eligible for ownership to go to the workers, by which we can infer nationalisation and state ownership.

Under your scheme, the entry criteria would be decided by a committee of interested parties including "business owners of all sizes" (although the range of sizes would be by definition greatly diminished).

I think you probably have the inkling by now that your proposal would be entirely unworkable in practical terms. Every business owner would be under incentive to grow his business only to a maximum size that would not trigger the gateway criteria. If these criteria would be set flexibly (i.e. arbitrarily) by committee, then he would be better off not even starting the business in the first place, to avoid the risk of becoming a moving target. So, under your proposal, no small businesses, no new inventions, no job growth at all from the private sector.

Can you not see that not only is the idea non-workable, but also devoid of any real morality?

I'm not proposing that scheme. If we're talking about differing tax rates or special benefits for small business owners then I'm okay with someone drawing a line for practicality sake.

As for worker-owned business cooperatives, I think these should exist on all levels except for direct self-employment.

They already exist in many countries, small businesses are given help with startup costs and the idea man gets paid while the business grows so he doesn't have to risk his own ass for the business and every company with multiple people is cooperatively owned and no single person has to take on all the risks associated.

So ideally, even a 10 person operation would be cooperatively owned.

Wei Wu Wei
11-14-2010, 11:02 AM
Here is where I find that argument misleading. First of all, there is the attempt to portray this as if the government took money out of the treasury that was garnered from the rest of us poor slobs and GAVE it to the very wealthy. While actually, the tax rates simply allowed them to keep more of their OWN money. Secondly, there is also the deliberate fostering of a misconception that their income group were the only ones who received cuts in their taxes. Conservatives have always advocated keeping taxes low on all taxpayers, not specifically the wealthy. If you, and those who agree with you wanted to make an honest argument about what levels of taxation should be implemented, let's do that. But do it without having to create false assumptions, misrepresenting conservative policy, and without encouraging class warfare.

I never said only the wealthy get tax cuts, only that they get a far higher proportion. These tax cuts benefit the very wealthy more than anyone else.

Conservatives may advocate low taxes for everyone not just the wealthy, but the guys you put in office sure have different ideas (perhaps because of the people who fund their campaigns and the lobbyists that write their bills?)

As for class warfare:

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” - Warren Buffet, billionaire (he's said this on more than one occasion)



Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”


When I mentioned on these panels that we should consider all options for closing this gap — including raising taxes, particularly for the wealthiest people — I was met with several arguments by people who call themselves conservatives and free marketers.

One argument was that the mere suggestion constituted class warfare. I think Mr. Buffett answered that one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html

That link addresses that quote along with other tax-cut-for-the-wealthy myths

Zathras
11-14-2010, 11:11 AM
All you prove with these lame assed threads Wee Wee is you're a jealous SOB and want what is not yours, the money legaly earned by people much better than your worthless, socialist, waste of skin ass.

Lager
11-14-2010, 12:01 PM
Let me say this about Buffet, and what were from him, stupid comments. He may bemoan that he feels he pays far too little in capital gains and dividend taxes, but those lower rates on those forms of income help middle class people invest and grow their own wealth upward. Buffet shouldn't be so arrogant as to say that now that he has the wealth he's comfortable at, that the system should be tweaked to make it harder for others.

Look, if Buffet was so adamant about not paying enough taxes, he could simply avoid taking tax breaks for his charitable contributions. That would probably mean thousands or hundreds of thousands more revenue for the fed. Same with Gates and other billionaires. The reason they don't, is because they realize how ineffective it would be to simply hand their money to the government. These guys obviously have to have good financial instincts to have gotten where they are. They know there's so much waste and ineffiecency in the government that it would be foolish to just throw dollars to it and hope that it does some good. That's why they have their foundations etc.

Buffet's comments are hypocritical and really hard to understand from a man that is know as being pretty intelligent.

Lager
11-14-2010, 12:09 PM
You can't have an honest debate of what the tax rates should be for different income levels until you have a debate on what and how many types of programs the government should, or should not be funding. Just saying that the rich should pay more, and then leave government with a blank check to throw money around for every special interest group, isn't palatable to most Americans. Government has built in waste. It has corruption. It has entangled and bloated layers of bureaucracies. It has sticky strings attached to every penny it hands out. Work on that first, before you reach into anyone's pockets further.

Adam Wood
11-14-2010, 12:14 PM
Let me say this about Buffet, and what were from him, stupid comments. He may bemoan that he feels he pays far too little in capital gains and dividend taxes, but those lower rates on those forms of income help middle class people invest and grow their own wealth upward. Buffet shouldn't be so arrogant as to say that now that he has the wealth he's comfortable at, that the system should be tweaked to make it harder for others.

Look, if Buffet was so adamant about not paying enough taxes, he could simply avoid taking tax breaks for his charitable contributions. That would probably mean thousands or hundreds of thousands more revenue for the fed. Same with Gates and other billionaires. The reason they don't, is because they realize how ineffective it would be to simply hand their money to the government. These guys obviously have to have good financial instincts to have gotten where they are. They know there's so much waste and ineffiecency in the government that it would be foolish to just throw dollars to it and hope that it does some good. That's why they have their foundations etc.

Buffet's comments are hypocritical and really hard to understand from a man that is know as being pretty intelligent.
A-fuckin'-men.

Odysseus
11-14-2010, 10:32 PM
You can't have an honest debate of what the tax rates should be for different income levels until you have a debate on what and how many types of programs the government should, or should not be funding. Just saying that the rich should pay more, and then leave government with a blank check to throw money around for every special interest group, isn't palatable to most Americans. Government has built in waste. It has corruption. It has entangled and bloated layers of bureaucracies. It has sticky strings attached to every penny it hands out. Work on that first, before you reach into anyone's pockets further.

Exactly. The purpose of taxes is to pay for government, not punish groups that our elites envy. Before we decide how much we expect to tax, we have to determine how much is going to be spent, and that means that we have to discuss the scope of government, what we consider its basic functions and how much power we want it to have. Without that, all we have are arguments about what level of taxation makes liberals feel good, or conservatives look greedy and heartless.

Wei Wu Wei
11-14-2010, 11:02 PM
I propose that all Americans should have quality health care service from the government like literally every other industrialized nation.

Bleda
11-14-2010, 11:18 PM
I propose that all Americans should have quality health care service from the government like literally every other industrialized nation.

You know, you can argue for single-payer/socialized medicine, but “everyone else is doing it!” is, I must say, probably the most childish reason I've ever heard for having such a health care system.

Odysseus
11-14-2010, 11:25 PM
I propose that all Americans should have quality health care service from the government like literally every other industrialized nation.

But other industrialized nations don't have quality health care. They have crappy, wait-in-line-until-you-die-of-natural-causes or ignore-it-until-goes-away health care. Britain's NHS is notorious for its delays, and the dental care is an international joke. My wife, who was a Brit (She's now a US citizen), is just now getting her braces off. She's wanted to get her teeth straightened since her teens, but the NHS wouldn't pay for it if she wasn't in physical pain, so she suffered a crooked smile until her mid-40s. Ask her about British medical care some time, if you want an earful. Canada's is so bad that their politicians endure public ridicule and charges of hypocrisy by coming to the US for life-saving treatments. Cuba's is a sham that wouldn't fool a half-wit (but did fool Michael Moore) and the rest of the public systems aren't any better.

If you want government-run health care, I propose that you do a stint in the military and then go to the local VA and see how you like the quality of care.

Apocalypse
11-14-2010, 11:40 PM
I propose that all Americans should have quality health care service from the government like literally every other industrialized nation.

Britain Plans to Decentralize theirs.

France has imposed American-style "co-pays" on patients.

The Dutch contract out Hospitals in neighboring countries to treat their people as their system can not meet their needs.

Germany's healthcare system is bankrupting them, and they are looking at massive tax increases, and rationing.

One by one, each nation that has it, is undoing it as they are finding out, it cost far more to have it then not. And it defiantly doesn't work as any one had thought.

Odysseus
11-15-2010, 09:44 AM
You know, you can argue for single-payer/socialized medicine, but “everyone else is doing it!” is, I must say, probably the most childish reason I've ever heard for having such a health care system.
Most of the left's arguments break down to children arguing with their parents. "All the other kids are doing it! It's not fair!" It applies to pretty much all of the social issues, like gay marriage ("The straight kids can get married! Why can't we?"), abortion ("if you won't pay for it, I'll go to a back alley"), hate crimes ("That kid said something mean to me!"), etc. While the economic and defense issues tend to be based on peer pressure ("Everybody else has nationalized health care! You don't love me!") or social acceptance ("Why can't I join the International Criminal Court? All the cool kids will be there! My life is over!"). And political choices in elections tend to be either raging hormones (OMG! Have you seen the new kid? Obama is so hawt!!!") or fashion fads ("Obama? He is so 2008"). This is why conservatives tend to end up playing daddy to them, trying to get them to stop taking their clothes off, use naughty words or otherwise behave inappropriately in public and to stop bothering everybody else.


Britain Plans to Decentralize theirs.

France has imposed American-style "co-pays" on patients.

The Dutch contract out Hospitals in neighboring countries to treat their people as their system can not meet their needs.

Germany's healthcare system is bankrupting them, and they are looking at massive tax increases, and rationing.

One by one, each nation that has it, is undoing it as they are finding out, it cost far more to have it then not. And it defiantly doesn't work as any one had thought.
The leftist desire for universally crappy health care isn't based on the quality of care or the desire to cover the uncovered (Obamacare infamously fell short on the one thing that everyone agreed was a problem, the uninsured, ending up only extending coverage to about a quarter of those who lacked insurance), but a cynical desire to expand government control over more sectors of the economy, create a new entitlement that forces people into dependence, and build up a power base. Everything else is a smokescreen. Wei doesn't care that other systems fail, just as he doesn't care that socialism always fails. He wants it because it empowers him and people like him, and takes power away from the individuals that he disdains as his inferiors.

Madisonian
11-15-2010, 10:07 AM
I propose that all Americans should have quality health care service from the government like literally every other industrialized nation.

The is a process for that. Amend the Constitution.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

In fact, this is the only way that Congress can legally create "departments" or "agencies" that exist on a federal level that have power or influence over citizens of the several States. All powers not delegated to the United States... (that pesky Tenth Amendment thing which presidents and congress critters of all persuasion routinely ignore).
So in effect, your "rights" are limited to what you can provide for yourself. You do not have the "right" to demand that I pay for your health care, education, food, shelter or anything else.

Adam Wood
11-15-2010, 10:17 AM
I propose that all Americans should have quality health care service from the government like literally every other industrialized nation.Well, that means that there's plenty for you to choose from when you decide where you're going to move to.

Molon Labe
11-15-2010, 11:55 AM
Oh as for the small business owner who becomes more and more successful, the more that you benefit from the system in place, the more you should put back into that system. I'm totally comfortable with high progressive taxation.


Yep... justifying coercive legalized theft by force based on YOUR definintion of when it's OK and at what point to do so. One of the those inconsistancies of progressive thinking on display.

Wei Wu Wei
11-15-2010, 11:57 AM
Levying taxes is perfectly legal and there is nothing explicitly written in the constitution specifically at which rates taxes will be collected.

it's like this for a reason.

WHO'S definition should we use when the government collects taxes?

lacarnut
11-15-2010, 12:24 PM
Levying taxes is perfectly legal and there is nothing explicitly written in the constitution specifically at which rates taxes will be collected.

it's like this for a reason.

WHO'S definition should we use when the government collects taxes?

The recent election proved that Americans do not want the horse shit on health care you are trying to sell, and they want tax cuts extended to all. Plus, liberals like Obama and Holder are shitting all over the constitution.

Molon Labe
11-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Levying taxes is perfectly legal and there is nothing explicitly written in the constitution specifically at which rates taxes will be collected.

it's like this for a reason.

WHO'S definition should we use when the government collects taxes?


I guess it requires breaking out of the paradigm. I'm totally against progressive taxation................of any sort.

You can call me unrealistic....but no more so than the anybody else that sees a better way than what we currently have.

AmPat
11-15-2010, 01:11 PM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.
GREAT!!!

We should not be dolling out other people's money via the heavy hand of government. :mad:
We should not have punitive taxes on the richest among us just because they have it to give.:mad:
We should not have a forced Health Care program because other countries have it. :rolleyes:

What section of the Constitution allows for us to rob anybody just because somebody else has a need?:confused:

AmPat
11-15-2010, 01:14 PM
Levying taxes is perfectly legal and there is nothing explicitly written in the constitution specifically at which rates taxes will be collected.

it's like this for a reason.

WHO'S definition should we use when the government collects taxes?

You define what the Constitutionally allowed functions of government are first, then you assess the required amount to provide those services. You do not take in gobs of money and raise the levels of spending and the tentacles of government just because weak sisters like you can't hack it alone.

Odysseus
11-15-2010, 02:22 PM
Levying taxes is perfectly legal and there is nothing explicitly written in the constitution specifically at which rates taxes will be collected.

it's like this for a reason.

WHO'S definition should we use when the government collects taxes?

Let's start with yours. Exactly how much of my income should the government be entitled to take away from me? How much is too much? Remember, every dollar that I have, I earn. Every dollar that I keep goes to keeping my family fed, clothed, housed and eventually, educated. How much of each dollar should the government be allowed to take away from the feeding, clothing, housing and education of my children? Give me a number.

Adam Wood
11-15-2010, 02:32 PM
Over a trillion dollars for tax cuts on the wealthy while making cuts on social programs and public services because of deficits.Lower taxes rates increase revenue. To pretend that one somehow has to "pay for" a tax cut is an outright lie.

The problem is the spending, not the revenue.

Apocalypse
11-15-2010, 06:25 PM
I think Wei is losing interest in this thread.

Madisonian
11-15-2010, 09:26 PM
Levying taxes is perfectly legal and there is nothing explicitly written in the constitution specifically at which rates taxes will be collected.

it's like this for a reason.

WHO'S definition should we use when the government collects taxes?

There are very few things in the Constitution that tax money can be spent on. They are defined in Article I Section 8.

Its like that for a reason.

Lager
11-16-2010, 09:54 AM
Here's a great example of what government is going to do with the extra money it takes from taxpayers. It's called the Chevy Volt. The Volt may or may not be an "all electric" car, depending on what you read about it. But it is going to cost around $41,000. So the government is going to subsidize those who might actually purchase this, with a tax credit of $7,500 of other people's money. Now, the price of the car is probably out of reach of the average middle class driver. Usually these types of vehicles are snapped up by environmentally aware lefties in higher income brackets who like to show off the fact that they can afford to be green. So, in a sense, the government wants to tax the wealthy more, so that they can subsidize the wealthy in the purchase of this vehicle.

This illustrates two examples of why the government fails at distributing wealth.
First, the political strings attached to where the money flows to. This is an obviously partisan payout to the lefty interest groups who insist on action on climate change.

Second, it's a foolish decision not only for obvious reasons, but because it will really do little for the reduction of green house gases due to the fact that the car will require recharging from electrical outlets that get their power from coal and natural gas powered plants.