- Banned
- #3,261
Still more evidence.
I'm sure that there are some objective dedicated responsible conservatives somewhere and even more such Republicans. As long as you put up with being represented by bungholes like this you will be unelectable.
[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes
- Thread starter tooAlive
- Start date
Still more evidence.
I'm sure that there are some objective dedicated responsible conservatives somewhere and even more such Republicans. As long as you put up with being represented by bungholes like this you will be unelectable.
itfitzme
Silver Member
Clearly you are a paranoid, delusional abusibe prick with no capacity for realistic, objective thought. You are exactly what I am talking about. Your fixation with other mens penises demonstrates it. The majority of us get through the day, the month, years, without thinking about someones dick.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
What's sad is that this really is the best you can do. You are a mindless drone. Ignorant and uneducated. The only answer you have to anything is to bleat what the party bosses tell you to bleat.
The decline of the nation into a police state is not something that concerns you, in fact you celebrate it. Leftism is totalitarian by nature, so the fact that we are turning into a brutal police state thrill you.
{Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.
Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.
Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture chronicles how state and federal laws leave innocent property owners vulnerable to forfeiture abuse and encourage law enforcement to take property to boost their budgets. The report finds that by giving law enforcement a direct financial stake in forfeiture efforts, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit, not justice. }
Policing for Profit | The Institute for Justice
- Banned
- #3,264
What amazes me is that people, who seem sincere, don't object to being represented by this trash. No wonder the Republican party has become such a political failure.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #3,265
I guess the lesson is that crime doesn't pay.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
- Banned
- #3,268
Very expensive when you get caught though, I'm told.
- Banned
- #3,269
You're a genuine sick puppy.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
The police get caught all the time - even murdering their victims.
Nothing happens.
I started a thread on this issue - since it is so far removed from the question of fair share.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/323828-armed-robbery-by-the-boys-in-blue.html
Last edited:
- Banned
- #3,271
Expecting perfect people always disappoints.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
I started a thread to discuss armed robbery by law enforcement.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/323828-armed-robbery-by-the-boys-in-blue.html
- Banned
- #3,273
I'm sure that good law enforcers know that many criminals don't look the part. They can be in Wall St suits, clerical costume, dresses, military and law enforcement uniform, politically correct hair, or pillar of the community garb.
Makes one glad for strong laws to define all kinds of criminal behavior and good enforcement and Judicial.
Your tax dollars at work.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Move to the new thread and I will address your post.
- Banned
- #3,275
I didn't post anything debatable.
Just because you say it does not make it so.
You are the one that is brainwashed into believing you and only you determines what conservatism is and who is a conservative.
The arrogant and pompous man you are.
Tell us what YOU believe and we will accept that.
We will tell what WE believe and quit telling us what you believe we are.
Conservatism IS what keeps my business alive.
Only a damn fool would believe that running a business liberally makes a cent.
- Banned
- #3,277
Conservative government took us from the the probability of being a debt free country to $17T in debt. We're lucky to have survived it.
How will you ever know if your business would not have been twice as successful if you'd have focused on the top rather than bottom line?
Pursued success rather than avoiding failure.
Invested in better employees and innovative products rather than cheap.
Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits (and repealing their affordable education), than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive (and to keep consuming so as to sustain economic growth). Debt-based consumption works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them. [Reaganomics worked better in the 80s when demand was vibrant enough to warrant the increased investment made possible by tax cuts. However, once demand is dead and you have no consumers, tax cuts won't repair that demand, it will only make the problem worse because tax cuts to the wealthy are usually coupled with austerity for the consumer classes]
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of this scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits (and repealing their affordable education), than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive (and to keep consuming so as to sustain economic growth). Debt-based consumption works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them. [Reaganomics worked better in the 80s when demand was vibrant enough to warrant the increased investment made possible by tax cuts. However, once demand is dead and you have no consumers, tax cuts won't repair that demand, it will only make the problem worse because tax cuts to the wealthy are usually coupled with austerity for the consumer classes]
But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
Last edited:
What an upside down view of the world you have. Unspoken contract. Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers. The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project. ROFL
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
Commies...where are you personally with your hopes of your communist utopia dreams?- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Americans Dying For Israel Is Not In Americas Best Interests
- Started by skews13
- Replies: 16
