Bill Maher "Rich" Threads (Merged)

[PoliticalChic]

[...]That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity.[...]

The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda known as flooding, which consists of burying the voters in an avalanche of bogus information which appears to be factual. This technique is effective because the average person has neither time nor inclination to closely examine the individual components of these overhelming chunks of misinformation in an effort to find the revealing flaws.

Normally the prospect of dissecting the multiple elements of your often imposing presentations is a discouraging challenge, the ultimate effect of which you might perceive as relative success. Perhaps sufficient success to cause you to think you could get away with portraying a diabolical scoundrel like Dick Cheney as a generously charitable humanitarian. But in this rather audacious attempt to score a point you have over-shot your mark and have succeeded only in completely blowing your credibility.

Dick Cheney -- a good and charitable man? I'm sure even you must agree that is taking it a bit too far:


"Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund.
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

Last week, ***** Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.

Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting." Charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000? For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high -- an unusually high number.

While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.

The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all."

More below:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Some of your stuff is downright humorous...like:
"The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda..."

Now, how do we do that, since 90% of the media is left wing, you know, like the one you quoted...

From Coulter:
1. Liberals still own 90% of the information dissemination in America, but are inconsolable over the death of Old Media’s monolithic control…These people used to become indignant when conservatives attacked the media. But now they won’t shut up about the media and act as if the mere existence of Fox News has put them in the midst of a police state.

a. Conservatives have the Washington Times, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Channel.

b. How, precisely, would a conservative go about eliminating liberal points of view from his life? You would have to be a survivalist in Idaho to escape the liberal sound chamber.

More?

2. The prospect of open debate with conservatives throws the mainstream media into a hissy fit that rivals an Alec Baldwin phone call to his daughter.

3. Arabs have one propaganda book, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ Liberals have about forty thousand propaganda outlets. In fact, they increasingly resemble the Iraqi insurgents- desperate and violent because they’re frustrated that they are losing intellectually.

4. In case you aren’t able to read ACLU press release for yourself, the Associated Press and the New York Times will helpfully restate them for you as important, breaking ‘news.’

5. Liberals defend every manner of pornography and filth on grounds that it’s ‘what the people want.’… The only material too prurient to let the public read is anything written by a conservative.

6. Have you seen ‘Citizen Kane’? You know, Kane marries the nightcub singer and then wants to make her a great opera singer. Because he controls all news in America, even though the audience is booing and throwing paper airplanes [at her], the headline on every newspaper is “Susan Alexander Sweeps Chicago!”
That’s what it’s like to be a liberal in America.


I just love Coulter...how about you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic, Wal-Mart is anything but an example of the success of competition. It is an example of the success of monopoly.

If there were any truth to your claim, the Holder Department of Injustice would be Sherman anti-Trust all over it.

You know that's clutching at straws argument...and you can't support it.

How about you 'fess up and admit to my earlier suppositions...it's all about the unions.

(We'll keep it a secret, and you won't have to turn in your Wobblie card)

 

[Madeline]

[...]That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity.[...]

The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda known as flooding, which consists of burying the voters in an avalanche of bogus information which appears to be factual. This technique is effective because the average person has neither time nor inclination to closely examine the individual components of these overhelming chunks of misinformation in an effort to find the revealing flaws.

Normally the prospect of dissecting the multiple elements of your often imposing presentations is a discouraging challenge, the ultimate effect of which you might perceive as relative success. Perhaps sufficient success to cause you to think you could get away with portraying a diabolical scoundrel like Dick Cheney as a generously charitable humanitarian. But in this rather audacious attempt to score a point you have over-shot your mark and have succeeded only in completely blowing your credibility.

Dick Cheney -- a good and charitable man? I'm sure even you must agree that is taking it a bit too far:


"Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund.
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

Last week, ***** Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.

Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting." Charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000? For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high -- an unusually high number.

While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.

The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all."

More below:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Some of your stuff is downright humorous...like:
"The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda..."

Now, how do we do that, since 90% of the media is left wing, you know, like the one you quoted...

From Coulter:
1. Liberals still own 90% of the information dissemination in America, but are inconsolable over the death of Old Media’s monolithic control…These people used to become indignant when conservatives attacked the media. But now they won’t shut up about the media and act as if the mere existence of Fox News has put them in the midst of a police state.

a. Conservatives have the Washington Times, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Channel.

b. How, precisely, would a conservative go about eliminating liberal points of view from his life? You would have to be a survivalist in Idaho to escape the liberal sound chamber.

More?

2. The prospect of open debate with conservatives throws the mainstream media into a hissy fit that rivals an Alec Baldwin phone call to his daughter.

3. Arabs have one propaganda book, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ Liberals have about forty thousand propaganda outlets. In fact, they increasingly resemble the Iraqi insurgents- desperate and violent because they’re frustrated that they are losing intellectually.

4. In case you aren’t able to read ACLU press release for yourself, the Associated Press and the New York Times will helpfully restate them for you as important, breaking ‘news.’

5. Liberals defend every manner of pornography and filth on grounds that it’s ‘what the people want.’… The only material too prurient to let the public read is anything written by a conservative.

6. Have you seen ‘Citizen Kane’? You know, Kane marries the nightcub singer and then wants to make her a great opera singer. Because he controls all news in America, even though the audience is booing and throwing paper airplanes [at her], the headline on every newspaper is “Susan Alexander Sweeps Chicago!”
That’s what it’s like to be a liberal in America.


I just love Coulter...how about you?

I despise Coulter, but media bias is impossible to deny after the Journolist scandal.

 

[Madeline]

PoliticalChic, Wal-Mart is anything but an example of the success of competition. It is an example of the success of monopoly.

If there were any truth to your claim, the Holder Department of Injustice would be Sherman anti-Trust all over it.

You know that's clutching at straws argument...and you can't support it.

How about you 'fess up and admit to my earlier suppositions...it's all about the unions.

(We'll keep it a secret, and you won't have to turn in your Wobblie card)

LOL. I do believe the Wobblies are extinct, PoliticalChic. There's some remnant of the ACP around but they are hardly what they were in the 50's, when my folks belonged.

No, DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality or lack of it; a thing can be a crime and not be prosecuted. Obama seems to think DOJ exists only to engage in political prosecutions; his abuse of power there may well be his undoing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic, Wal-Mart is anything but an example of the success of competition. It is an example of the success of monopoly.

If there were any truth to your claim, the Holder Department of Injustice would be Sherman anti-Trust all over it.

You know that's clutching at straws argument...and you can't support it.

How about you 'fess up and admit to my earlier suppositions...it's all about the unions.

(We'll keep it a secret, and you won't have to turn in your Wobblie card)

LOL. I do believe the Wobblies are extinct, PoliticalChic. There's some remnant of the ACP around but they are hardly what they were in the 50's, when my folks belonged.

No, DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality or lack of it; a thing can be a crime and not be prosecuted. Obama seems to think DOJ exists only to engage in political prosecutions; his abuse of power there may well be his undoing.

I mentioned Wobblies because of the emblem you had in your earlier post #176

I've done quite a bit of reading on the period...have you read Dos Passos Trilogy?

"DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality..." Nonsense. Of course they do, and would. The upshot is that there is no such monopoly.

Possibly you have heard of Microsoft....

"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor."

 

[Madeline]

If there were any truth to your claim, the Holder Department of Injustice would be Sherman anti-Trust all over it.

You know that's clutching at straws argument...and you can't support it.

How about you 'fess up and admit to my earlier suppositions...it's all about the unions.

(We'll keep it a secret, and you won't have to turn in your Wobblie card)

LOL. I do believe the Wobblies are extinct, PoliticalChic. There's some remnant of the ACP around but they are hardly what they were in the 50's, when my folks belonged.

No, DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality or lack of it; a thing can be a crime and not be prosecuted. Obama seems to think DOJ exists only to engage in political prosecutions; his abuse of power there may well be his undoing.

I mentioned Wobblies because of the emblem you had in your earlier post.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the period...have you read Dos Passos Trilogy?

"DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality..." Nonsense. Of course they do, and would. The upshot is that there is no such monopoly.

Possibly you have heard of Microsoft....

"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor."

I have read too, PoliticalChic but not that book. Thankies for the recommendation. I just ordered "The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy"; the 1950's fascinate me.

I re-assert; absence of a criminal prosecution is not proof of innocence. There have been hundreds of private lawsuits against Wal-Mart for a variety of Anti-Trust violations but they rarely if ever succeed. Kinda hard to prevail at trial against The World's Biggest Company.

 

[Norman]

PoliticalChic, Wal-Mart is anything but an example of the success of competition. It is an example of the success of monopoly.

Umm... WHAT?

How is wallmart a monopoly?

And I mean COMPETITIVE monopolies are a good thing. It's only the monopolies that abuse the monopoly status (ie sell for prices that generate loss in equity to wipe out competition), that are bad. Wallmart just has low prices, it has nothing to do with monopoly.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bill Maher was forced to admit on his own show that he is not a Libertarian. He is a Marxist who believes rules should be imposed on the citizens by Elitist like him. That is the prims behind his New Rules Segment that hos drones applaud every show.

Only brainwashed idiots believe anything that asshole had to say.

And you're a fucking liar. He did NOT admit to being a Marxist. You just pulled that out of you're ass, like a typical asshat Regressive, and I just called you on it, like an ethically superior Liberal should.

Obviously you are an idiot with reading disabilities or are twisting my post. I did not say he said he was a Marxist, I said he is a Marxist & loves to tell us the new rules he wishes to impose weekly on us. What a fucking disaster it would be for people to live under that kind of ever changing dictatorship. Yet you idiots applaud it every time.

Bill Maher: Not a Libertarian but European Socialist. Here is the VIDEO

ANDREW BREITBART: So you're, you're officially not a Libertarian anymore, right? I mean, this position...

MAHER: Well..

BREITBART: ...has run so far from the Libertarian position. Is this, so you admit that you have more of a, you know, European socialist leaning perspective on this issue?

(AUDIENCE LAUGHTER)

BREITBART: Why is that funny?

(The look on Maher's face at this moment said it all)

MAHER: I'm, I'm not afraid, it's not, I'm not afraid to say European socialism works.

You're still fucking lying.

Maher:

MAHER: I'm, I'm not afraid, it's not, I'm not afraid to say European socialism works.

Nowhere does he say that he is a European Socialist. Kim Jong Il could say that Capitalism works. That does not make him a Capitalist.

Maybe you're not a liar. Maybe you're just stupid.

 

[Synthaholic]

Friend, you are a fine example of the kind of easily-led dolt who fails to see what is right in front of his own eyes: Wal-Mart is the example of the success of competition.

You probably long for the days when AT&T/Ma Bell controlled all the telephone communications, and it cost an arm and a leg to make a long distance call.

Although, the more I (attempt to) read your posts, the more I come to believing that you weren't even alive until the cellphone age, and think Ma Bell was a person.



You're funny.

And you buy the spin, buy it like was on sale...just not at Wal-Mart.

Oh, I do plenty of shopping at Wal*Mart, and used to do even more before Costco came to town. But they have had a detrimental effect on our freedom of choice, along with contributing to unemployment and lower wages by hurting small business.

"...the more I come to believing that you weren't even alive until the cellphone age, and think Ma Bell was a person."
Nah, but I appreciate how far our Mexican brethren have come, with their own phone company, ya' know, Taco Bell.


Rather than hypothesize about what I believe, how about simply dealing with the post, huh?

All of a sudden you are shy about giving your opinion? That's the mark of someone who has lost the debate.

I think the idea was that Wal-Mart is successful because it serves the public well...

Yeah, I already destroyed that argument. Try again.

It will be hard for you to argue with that, because you say " ...I do plenty of shopping at Wal*Mart..."

I do! Or, at least I did. Not as much anymore, mainly because they do NOT serve the people. Employees have little knowledge about their store, and even less desire to actually help you. There is little concern over their customers' valuable time, since they only open a few registers to check people out. There is less freedom of choice, and since there is no longer competition, they do not need to keep their prices low.

So, they are not serving the public well.

And the idea of masters determining what you think is operative, as the only dif between Wal-Mart and the other establishments is the union.

If Wal-Mart allowed unions, you guys would just love it. Your masters' voice.

I'm not in a union state, and they just aren't a factor here in the South. Unions would be better for Wal*Mart employees, but that does not concern me as much as their monopolistic ways.

 

[Synthaholic]

The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda known as flooding, which consists of burying the voters in an avalanche of bogus information which appears to be factual. This technique is effective because the average person has neither time nor inclination to closely examine the individual components of these overhelming chunks of misinformation in an effort to find the revealing flaws.

Normally the prospect of dissecting the multiple elements of your often imposing presentations is a discouraging challenge, the ultimate effect of which you might perceive as relative success. Perhaps sufficient success to cause you to think you could get away with portraying a diabolical scoundrel like Dick Cheney as a generously charitable humanitarian. But in this rather audacious attempt to score a point you have over-shot your mark and have succeeded only in completely blowing your credibility.

Dick Cheney -- a good and charitable man? I'm sure even you must agree that is taking it a bit too far:


"Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund.
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

Last week, ***** Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.

Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting." Charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000? For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high -- an unusually high number.

While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.

The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all."

More below:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Some of your stuff is downright humorous...like:
"The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda..."

Now, how do we do that, since 90% of the media is left wing, you know, like the one you quoted...

From Coulter:
1. Liberals still own 90% of the information dissemination in America, but are inconsolable over the death of Old Media’s monolithic control…These people used to become indignant when conservatives attacked the media. But now they won’t shut up about the media and act as if the mere existence of Fox News has put them in the midst of a police state.

a. Conservatives have the Washington Times, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Channel.

b. How, precisely, would a conservative go about eliminating liberal points of view from his life? You would have to be a survivalist in Idaho to escape the liberal sound chamber.

More?

2. The prospect of open debate with conservatives throws the mainstream media into a hissy fit that rivals an Alec Baldwin phone call to his daughter.

3. Arabs have one propaganda book, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ Liberals have about forty thousand propaganda outlets. In fact, they increasingly resemble the Iraqi insurgents- desperate and violent because they’re frustrated that they are losing intellectually.

4. In case you aren’t able to read ACLU press release for yourself, the Associated Press and the New York Times will helpfully restate them for you as important, breaking ‘news.’

5. Liberals defend every manner of pornography and filth on grounds that it’s ‘what the people want.’… The only material too prurient to let the public read is anything written by a conservative.

6. Have you seen ‘Citizen Kane’? You know, Kane marries the nightcub singer and then wants to make her a great opera singer. Because he controls all news in America, even though the audience is booing and throwing paper airplanes [at her], the headline on every newspaper is “Susan Alexander Sweeps Chicago!”
That’s what it’s like to be a liberal in America.


I just love Coulter...how about you?

I despise Coulter, but media bias is impossible to deny after the Journolist scandal.

There was no scandal. Stop believing wingnut propaganda.

 

[KissMy]

And you're a fucking liar. He did NOT admit to being a Marxist. You just pulled that out of you're ass, like a typical asshat Regressive, and I just called you on it, like an ethically superior Liberal should.

Obviously you are an idiot with reading disabilities or are twisting my post. I did not say he said he was a Marxist, I said he is a Marxist & loves to tell us the new rules he wishes to impose weekly on us. What a fucking disaster it would be for people to live under that kind of ever changing dictatorship. Yet you idiots applaud it every time.

Bill Maher: Not a Libertarian but European Socialist. Here is the VIDEO

You're still fucking lying.

Maher:

MAHER: I'm, I'm not afraid, it's not, I'm not afraid to say European socialism works.

Nowhere does he say that he is a European Socialist. Kim Jong Il could say that Capitalism works. That does not make him a Capitalist.

Maybe you're not a liar. Maybe you're just stupid.

I never said he said he was a Socialist you stupid fucking retard. I said he wants to be a Marxist dictator with his weekly new rules that you idiots applaud. It is time you learn to comprehend & stop applauding want-a-be Dictators.

 

[Synthaholic]

When you begin with a significant deviation of angle you end up completely off the track. So let's go back to the beginning and adjust: What "factory" does the CEO of a mortgage bank who takes home a $300 million annual bonus use? What trucks does he use? And what tolls does he pay?

To shorten what could be a redundant exchange of economic theory and political philosophy, the fact is no one arguing here is opposed to wealth which is ethically and honestly created. What is opposed here is the kind of excessive wealth which is accumulated via usury and deviously unethical means.

Using a factory to create wealth is good. Using money to exploit people who have none is not good.

Exploitation is very different from creative effort. The argument is not against wealth but the means by which it is accumulated.

Thankfully, it is not up to you or your ilk to "determine" what wealth is "excessive."

When you guys attempt to discuss silly notions like an "excess profits tax," the same questions come up. What the fuck is an "excess" profit? Who are you to determine how much is enough or too much? What is the basis for your random calls? Who on earth gave you (or would give you) that kind of authority? Why would they do something silly like that?

Similarly it is not for you or your ilk to determine what wealth is honestly and ethically created. Outside of actual criminal behavior which is subject to the rule of law and evidence and due process safeguards, it really is of ZERO consequence if you happen to object to the manner in which any entrepreneur creates wealth.

Let's apply your first quote to the second quote: who are they to subject you to rules of law and evidence? I believe the answer is the collective society. So why couldn't that same collective society determine how much is too much?

Looks like Liability has waddled away.

 

[mudwhistle]

The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda known as flooding, which consists of burying the voters in an avalanche of bogus information which appears to be factual. This technique is effective because the average person has neither time nor inclination to closely examine the individual components of these overhelming chunks of misinformation in an effort to find the revealing flaws.

Normally the prospect of dissecting the multiple elements of your often imposing presentations is a discouraging challenge, the ultimate effect of which you might perceive as relative success. Perhaps sufficient success to cause you to think you could get away with portraying a diabolical scoundrel like Dick Cheney as a generously charitable humanitarian. But in this rather audacious attempt to score a point you have over-shot your mark and have succeeded only in completely blowing your credibility.

Dick Cheney -- a good and charitable man? I'm sure even you must agree that is taking it a bit too far:


"Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund.
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

Last week, ***** Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.

Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting." Charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000? For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high -- an unusually high number.

While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.

The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all."

More below:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Some of your stuff is downright humorous...like:
"The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda..."

Now, how do we do that, since 90% of the media is left wing, you know, like the one you quoted...

From Coulter:
1. Liberals still own 90% of the information dissemination in America, but are inconsolable over the death of Old Media’s monolithic control…These people used to become indignant when conservatives attacked the media. But now they won’t shut up about the media and act as if the mere existence of Fox News has put them in the midst of a police state.

a. Conservatives have the Washington Times, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and Fox News Channel.

b. How, precisely, would a conservative go about eliminating liberal points of view from his life? You would have to be a survivalist in Idaho to escape the liberal sound chamber.

More?

2. The prospect of open debate with conservatives throws the mainstream media into a hissy fit that rivals an Alec Baldwin phone call to his daughter.

3. Arabs have one propaganda book, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ Liberals have about forty thousand propaganda outlets. In fact, they increasingly resemble the Iraqi insurgents- desperate and violent because they’re frustrated that they are losing intellectually.

4. In case you aren’t able to read ACLU press release for yourself, the Associated Press and the New York Times will helpfully restate them for you as important, breaking ‘news.’

5. Liberals defend every manner of pornography and filth on grounds that it’s ‘what the people want.’… The only material too prurient to let the public read is anything written by a conservative.

6. Have you seen ‘Citizen Kane’? You know, Kane marries the nightcub singer and then wants to make her a great opera singer. Because he controls all news in America, even though the audience is booing and throwing paper airplanes [at her], the headline on every newspaper is “Susan Alexander Sweeps Chicago!”
That’s what it’s like to be a liberal in America.


I just love Coulter...how about you?

I despise Coulter, but media bias is impossible to deny after the Journolist scandal.

Yet it still works with folks like yourself. A prime example is your hatred of Coulter.

 

[mudwhistle]

LOL. I do believe the Wobblies are extinct, PoliticalChic. There's some remnant of the ACP around but they are hardly what they were in the 50's, when my folks belonged.

No, DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality or lack of it; a thing can be a crime and not be prosecuted. Obama seems to think DOJ exists only to engage in political prosecutions; his abuse of power there may well be his undoing.

I mentioned Wobblies because of the emblem you had in your earlier post.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the period...have you read Dos Passos Trilogy?

"DOJ investigations and prosecutions do not demonstrate legality..." Nonsense. Of course they do, and would. The upshot is that there is no such monopoly.

Possibly you have heard of Microsoft....

"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor."

I have read too, PoliticalChic but not that book. Thankies for the recommendation. I just ordered "The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy"; the 1950's fascinate me.

I re-assert; absence of a criminal prosecution is not proof of innocence. There have been hundreds of private lawsuits against Wal-Mart for a variety of Anti-Trust violations but they rarely if ever succeed. Kinda hard to prevail at trial against The World's Biggest Company.

Kind of hard to find a judgment in your favor when most of the suits are based on false allegations by the claimants.

 

[georgephillip]

That's the choice Joseph Stiglitz laid out at the recent Fall Workshop of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers.

"“We will see in the next two years the real cost of there not being a second round of stimulus,” he said. “We will see the economy slow down at a very high economic cost.”

Stig also predicted a "new normal" for unemployment of 7 to 8 percent.

"“We likely face a marked reduction in standard of living,” he said.

Stiglitz: More Stimulus...

 

[Norman]

That's the choice Joseph Stiglitz laid out at the recent Fall Workshop of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers.

"“We will see in the next two years the real cost of there not being a second round of stimulus,” he said. “We will see the economy slow down at a very high economic cost.”

Stig also predicted a "new normal" for unemployment of 7 to 8 percent.

"“We likely face a marked reduction in standard of living,” he said.

Stiglitz: More Stimulus...

Problem with this kind of posts is, there is no way to really prove if stimulus was harmful or not. US standard of living HAS TO decline anyway, stimulus or not, obviously you can't rack on debt forever. Rationally speaking I think stimulus is a disaster. But much better stimulus than this would be to give huge tax brakes rather than paving roads that don't need to be paved.

In my mind it's kinda like a guy already in huge debt getting a loan from the bank with huge interest. Sure the loan MIGHT be paid back, the guy might come up with the best invention of all times somehow magically, BUT what are the odds?

And in the end if he fails he can say "I didn't take too much debt" or if he didn't take the loan and fails from the old loans he can say "If I had taken a new loan I would have saved myself".

 

[georgephillip]

Rather than paving roads how about building high-speed freight/passenger rail lines from sea to shining sea? Universal fiber-optic Internet for ALL the US is also a real possibility IF we don't go to Wall Street for the money.

In 1919 the State of North Dakota began doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota. Currently that state has no budget deficit (along with Montana, maybe) and ND has more jobs than people looking for them.

State banks can fund mortgages at 2% interest and cap credit cards at 6%. Citizens of every state in this Republic will save billion$ in interest that would have gone to Wall Street, dollars that will stay in-state and create new jobs.

And their State banks will earn billions more helping them save.

Finally, even if you're right about the US standard of living facing inevitable decline, shouldn't that loss extend to everyone including the richest citizens?

Web of Debt

 

[Barb]

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

First off, far from being vilified, we bailed you out -- you mean we were supposed to give you all that money and kiss your ass, too?

 

[FireGod]

No rational tax pundit supports a regressive tax as a substitute for the income tax, FireGod. A tax is considered regressive when a poor person will pay an effective rate (percent of total income) that exceeds the effective rate paid by a wealthy person. Any form of sales taxation is considered to be regressive.

As a second objection, though much less severe, a consumption tax would be far too easy to avoid merely by buying overseas.

The second objection while valid has little merit with those that live a distance from a border IMO.

My original premise is also regressive to the nth degree however that in itself does not make it wrong. On the premise that capitalism is the best model bar none then regressive taxation no matter the form is a good thing as it seems that most feel that taxation is a good motivational tool for economic stability for the individual and those who run the economy.

FireGod, anyone with access to the internet can buy overseas. Only payments for goods that require UCC filings (such as vehicles) can be captured easily upon sale or transfer.

BTW, every tax pundit -- that's all of them FireGod -- considers revenue generation via regressive taxation to be immoral. IMMORAL. And no, blogging about taxation alone does not qualify anyone as a"pundit".

Point taken on the overseas purchasing, the cost of shipping however makes it a bit more prohibitive in some instances.

I guess it is a good thing that I am not a certified tax pundit then. BTW just because everyone says the earth is flat does not make it a fact.

Here is the thing, can you honestly say that those who have apparent control over our country would not jump on my proposal barring the the possibility of revolt of the masses? This line of logic while seemingly extreme is a valid conclusion to the argument: The wealthy are the ones that create jobs and the economy, therefore placing tax burdens on the wealthy is counterproductive to the financial health of the country as a whole.