'Why I’m So Mean'

[Truthmatters]

Stupid maybe but not mean.

Ignorance is no defense.

Ignorance is the left's last defense, that's why they are at war with information. They hate Fox and they hate Limbaugh and Beck because they are living in an ignorant little world.

Fox Beck and Rush are propaganda you fool.

the fact that you think they bring you the facts is really sad

 

[whitehall]

What does the man who essentially established the credentials of the capitalistic system think of estate taxes? I am speaking of Adam Smith, who wrote "Wealth of Nations".

Jeff Weintraub: Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)

From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson, lovers of freedom have demanded that social privilege be earned -- not inherited. [....]
Estate taxes can easily look cruel or unfair if one calls them "death taxes." In fact, however, they are the fairest of all taxes, and have a long and proud history.
Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."

I assume it's the same Jeff Weintraub who describes himself as a "democratic socialist". The addition of the word "democratic" is typical left wing camouflage intended to soften the anarchist agenda.

 

[Dot Com]

What does the man who essentially established the credentials of the capitalistic system think of estate taxes? I am speaking of Adam Smith, who wrote "Wealth of Nations".

Jeff Weintraub: Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)

From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson, lovers of freedom have demanded that social privilege be earned -- not inherited. [....]
Estate taxes can easily look cruel or unfair if one calls them "death taxes." In fact, however, they are the fairest of all taxes, and have a long and proud history.
Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."

I assume it's the same Jeff Weintraub who describes himself as a "democratic socialist". The addition of the word "democratic" is typical left wing camouflage intended to soften the anarchist agenda.

ummm..... he just compiled the above quotes. Quotes speak for themselves

 

[whitehall]

What does the man who essentially established the credentials of the capitalistic system think of estate taxes? I am speaking of Adam Smith, who wrote "Wealth of Nations".

Jeff Weintraub: Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)

From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson, lovers of freedom have demanded that social privilege be earned -- not inherited. [....]
Estate taxes can easily look cruel or unfair if one calls them "death taxes." In fact, however, they are the fairest of all taxes, and have a long and proud history.
Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."

I assume it's the same Jeff Weintraub who describes himself as a "democratic socialist". The addition of the word "democratic" is typical left wing camouflage intended to soften the anarchist agenda.

ummm..... he just compiled the above quotes. Quotes speak for themselves

Just say it lefties and quit pissing around. If you think socialism is a viable future for America just come out with it and quit playing games.

 

[Truthmatters]

What does the man who essentially established the credentials of the capitalistic system think of estate taxes? I am speaking of Adam Smith, who wrote "Wealth of Nations".

Jeff Weintraub: Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)

From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson, lovers of freedom have demanded that social privilege be earned -- not inherited. [....]
Estate taxes can easily look cruel or unfair if one calls them "death taxes." In fact, however, they are the fairest of all taxes, and have a long and proud history.
Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."

I assume it's the same Jeff Weintraub who describes himself as a "democratic socialist". The addition of the word "democratic" is typical left wing camouflage intended to soften the anarchist agenda.

just for you




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4DRUjpYlk&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL6E94FD72FE47833E]Bright And Shiny - Bubble Boy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[whitehall]

I asked if it was the same professor Jeff Weintraub who refers to himself as a "democratic socialist" and all I got back from the ignorant left was "hummm" and a bubble boy video. Don't lefties even read the junk talking points that Soros gives them every day?

 

[koshergrl]

I asked if it was the same professor Jeff Weintraub who refers to himself as a "democratic socialist" and all I got back from the ignorant left was "hummm" and a bubble boy video. Don't lefties even read the junk talking points that Soros gives them every day?

I doubt the liberal mob's ability to read, period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does the man who essentially established the credentials of the capitalistic system think of estate taxes? I am speaking of Adam Smith, who wrote "Wealth of Nations".

Jeff Weintraub: Teddy Roosevelt & Adam Smith on inheritance taxes (Susan Dunn & Sam Fleischacker)

From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson, lovers of freedom have demanded that social privilege be earned -- not inherited. [....]
Estate taxes can easily look cruel or unfair if one calls them "death taxes." In fact, however, they are the fairest of all taxes, and have a long and proud history.
Adam Smith taught the students who attended his jurisprudential lectures that "there is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." He thought inheritance was clearly justified only when it was necessary to provide for dependent children.
Among those who attended Smith's lectures was the historian and jurist John Millar, who supported a change in the inheritance laws such that wills would be enforced only for a limited part of a person's property. Millar saw this as entirely compatible with a respect for property rights. He was joined in this, as in his enthusiasm for Smith, by Tom Paine.
And Thomas Jefferson, who described "The Wealth of Nations" as "the best book extant" on political economy, famously wondered at about the same time whether all hereditary privileges should be abolished since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He could have been quoting Smith with those words: It is "the most absurd of all suppositions," said Smith, "that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth."

How much was the personal income tax back in those day, Warmer?

Hmm?

 

[whitehall]

Here's how it works. Some leftie puts together an opinion of someone else's opinion of what they think John Adams might have thought and Soros/Huffington picks it up and throws it out as a daily talking point to promote class envy. The lockstep radicals figure "this is dynamite because the right wing loves John Adams" and they post it. The problem is that today's left's historic concept is based on pop-culture and it only goes back a decade or two. It's just stuff that they throw out and they are shocked when someone actually argues about the source and content and then they typically revert to school yard insults.

 

[Oddball]

Stupid maybe but not mean.

No, midcan't is definitely stupid AND mean.

It's the principal reason that his posts are primarily the words of other people and links to leftist hack books from Amazon.

So are you.

And?

There's a great difference between being mean and not taking any lip off of stupid mean collectivist assholes, by responding to them in kind.

Though I wouldn't expect mean authoritarian hacks like you to notice such subtleties.

 

[BDBoop]

No, midcan't is definitely stupid AND mean.

It's the principal reason that his posts are primarily the words of other people and links to leftist hack books from Amazon.

So are you.

And?

There's a great difference between being mean and not taking any lip off of stupid mean collectivist assholes, by responding to them in kind.

Though I wouldn't expect mean authoritarian hacks like you to notice such subtleties.

 

[midcan5]

"Conservatism is so influenced by business culture and by business modes of thinking that it lacks any political imagination, which has always been, I have to say, a property of the left." Irving Kristol

The liberals propose an alternative. Only the really stupid and ill equipped are competent to run businesses or the government. The intelligent, the canny and inventive are going to be rich. They just are, they will have better ideas, develop better products, make better decisions and have better judgment than someone who can't even lift themselves out of poverty. To liberals the more poor someone is, the better they are at judging for us all.

You see folks the replies hardly start when an apologist for greed appears. Of course I know lots of intelligent people who aren't rich, same goes for canny and inventive. Katz, they always do better? Are you sure as history tells another story, and so called experts have a proven record on the same level as random dart throwing. I have linked that fact before.

And then there are the usual wingnuts who know everything there is to know by some magical power for if you link a source or a book, they boohoo you. Is it any wonder they can be classified as stupid. Mom's on my shoulder saying be nice.

But rich people I know and many aren't so bad, but folks they ain't much different from the poor sucker who just lost his job only when you are rich those things matter less. And if you were lucky enough to have rich parents you're set.

Two of my favorite links below. For those whose knowledge comes into their head from that magic place, no need to read as you have your instructions already.

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


"Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind' Kristol quote from this source too.

But Progressives have no problem with a government that spend over 3 fucking TRILLION annually and has a $1.3 TRILLION deficit

Most of that debt is from our last president, please pay attention. Are you up to paying off the last president's debt?

Added, comments below.

Merit is earned when one works hard.

So only the rich work hard? Are you sure, I see lots early morning heading into work, guess they all bum when they get there? You think?

Did you just call for a 90% across the board federal income tax rate?

No, an economist did based on a reasonable return of wealth to its owners.

 

[koshergrl]

Merit is earned when one works hard.

 

[eflatminor]

"Conservatism is so influenced by business culture and by business modes of thinking that it lacks any political imagination, which has always been, I have to say, a property of the left." Irving Kristol

The liberals propose an alternative. Only the really stupid and ill equipped are competent to run businesses or the government. The intelligent, the canny and inventive are going to be rich. They just are, they will have better ideas, develop better products, make better decisions and have better judgment than someone who can't even lift themselves out of poverty. To liberals the more poor someone is, the better they are at judging for us all.

You see folks the replies hardly start when an apologist for greed appears. Of course I know lots of intelligent people who aren't rich, same goes for canny and inventive. Katz, they always do better? Are you sure as history tells another story, and so called experts have a proven record on the same level as random dart throwing. I have linked that fact before.

And then there are the usual wingnuts who know everything there is to know by some magical power for if you link a source or a book, they boohoo you. Is it any wonder they can be classified as stupid. That's mom on my shoulder saying be nice.

But rich people I know and many aren't so bad, but folks they ain't much different from the poor sucker who just lost his job only when you are rich those things matter less. And if you were lucky enough to have rich parents you're set.

Two of my favorite links below. For those whose knowledge comes into their head from that magic place, no need to read as you have your instructions already.

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


"Conservatism is the theoretical voice of this animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite." Corey Robin 'The Reactionary Mind' Kristol quote from this source too.

Did you just call for a 90% across the board federal income tax rate?

 

[CandySlice]

Misguided and uninformed most certainly but mean?? Naw.

 

[midcan5]

These are the puppet masters of the right wing today. These are the knowledge creators of the right wing in America today. These are the republican ideologues who control the minds of the right wing conservative today.

'Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney'

"They're trying to buy a presidency - and they expect a big payoff on their investment"

"Presidential politics has always been a rich man's game. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. "I have lots of money, and can give it legally now," Texas billionaire and top GOP moneyman Harold Simmons recently bragged to The Wall Street Journal. "Just never to Democrats."

In past elections, big donors like Simmons gave millions for advocacy groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. By law, such groups were only allowed to run issue ads – but instead they directly targeted John Kerry, drawing big fines from the Federal Elections Commission. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, the wealthy can legally hand out unlimited sums to groups that openly campaign for a candidate, knowing that their "dark money" donations will be kept entirely secret. The billionaire Koch brothers, for instance, have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama this year – but their off-the-book contributions don't appear in any FEC filings."

Read more: Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And this is some of what America gets in return.

Why Private Equity Firms Like Bain Really Are the Worst of Capitalism | Josh Kosman | Politics News | Rolling Stone
_

 

[sitarro]

These are the puppet masters of the right wing today. These are the knowledge creators of the right wing in America today. These are the republican ideologues who control the minds of the right wing conservative today.

'Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney'

"They're trying to buy a presidency - and they expect a big payoff on their investment"

"Presidential politics has always been a rich man's game. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. "I have lots of money, and can give it legally now," Texas billionaire and top GOP moneyman Harold Simmons recently bragged to The Wall Street Journal. "Just never to Democrats."

In past elections, big donors like Simmons gave millions for advocacy groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. By law, such groups were only allowed to run issue ads – but instead they directly targeted John Kerry, drawing big fines from the Federal Elections Commission. Now, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, the wealthy can legally hand out unlimited sums to groups that openly campaign for a candidate, knowing that their "dark money" donations will be kept entirely secret. The billionaire Koch brothers, for instance, have reportedly pledged $60 million to defeat President Obama this year – but their off-the-book contributions don't appear in any FEC filings."

Read more: Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And this is some of what America gets in return.

Why Private Equity Firms Like Bain Really Are the Worst of Capitalism | Josh Kosman | Politics News | Rolling Stone
_

I guess you are conveniently forgetting that the clown in your avatar spent 730,000,000 dollars of special interest money to buy the Presidency in the last election. Do you bother to read the garbage that you paste from tenured assholes that have no idea what the real world is like? Big on theory.....reality....not so much.

 

[sitarro]

That same asshole has wasted years on the job campaigning for this year's election. A month ago he had been to more fund raisers than the previous 5 Presidents combined!!!! That was before the Clooney 40,000 dollar a plate dinner........ this jerk is the biggest whore in Washington D.C., that is all he is about......MONEY! Taking from others to buy votes from suckers, idiots, crooks and deviants........ basically the base of his democrat party.

 

[editec]

It doeesn't advance one's argument to inform stupid people that they're stupid.

In the first place, many of them already know they're not very bright.

In the second place insulting them only reinforces their committment to hating your and by extention, your POV, too.

This is a lesson that I truly wish the left understood better than it does.

The left crafts their arguments FOR THEMSELVES. They craft their arguments in ways that their professors would approve of, but in a way that makes the terminally stupid feel even dumber than they are.

They ought to be crafting those arguments in a way that the STUPID can understand them.

The GOP figured out this public relations fact 40 years ago!

They KNOW that the best way to appeal to the stupid is to pander to their conceits and to their fears and The GOP realized that complex arguments better suited to a college debating society are NOT going to do THAT.

 

[Si modo]

Midcan has been here before I was on this board. Since I have been here I have NEVER seen that poster demonstrate ANY ability for independent thought - just parroting.

Maybe before I joined, but that is a long time for someone never to show the ability.

*shaking head back and forth in amazement*