The Watering Hole

i am very interested in what everyone thinks. is redistribution of wealth the way obama sees it desired? the man was elected but i am curious if this was overlooked or looked at and decided it was beneficial? here's a direct quote from an interview with obama RECENTLY and on national news backing up that claim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFdkTxYrCnQ

what are your thoughts on this? is this a necessary step in progress for us?

i would like to present a quote taken from over 100 years ago but still relevant today.

"The Act of Congress which we are impugning before you
is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and
is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic -
what shall I call them - populistic as ever have been addressed
to any political assembly in the world."

this was given by the man who succesfully challenged the income tax act of 1894 which made a direct unapportioned tax unconstitutional as decided by the supreme court. YES THE SUPREME COURT RULED THESE TYPES OF TAXES GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
the 16th amendment later gave the .gov the ability to tax income how they wanted to. incidentally it was around a 3% tax on income that only the uber-rich paid which made it popular to everyone because it applied to no-one.

i'll leave you with one from bertrand do jouvenel that i agree with whole-heartedly

The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.

You are talking about a max tax rate of 39% under Obama.  That is 3% more than now.  Under Reagan, the highest rate for six years of his term was 50%.  And in the first two years, it was 70%!

I'm pretty sure Reagan was a communist too.

Yes, I believe that the progressive tax system is more than fair.  Yes, I pay more than some people, as a percentage of my income.  But I have a lot more to pay.  On the fairness of it, I'll defer to Warren Buffett.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

charger — Nov 05, 2008You are talking about a max tax rate of 39% under Obama.  That is 3% more than now.  Under Reagan, the highest rate for six years of his term was 50%.  And in the first two years, it was 70%!

I'm pretty sure Reagan was a communist too.

Yes, I believe that the progressive tax system is more than fair.  Yes, I pay more than some people, as a percentage of my income.  But I have a lot more to pay.  On the fairness of it, I'll defer to Warren Buffett.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

im not calling anyone a communist. i'm remarking on how our country has taken a turn away from the views of our founding fathers when they inked the constitution and where we are headed as a nation.

chase — Nov 05, 2008[quote author=charger link=1225917010/0#1 date=1225918004]You are talking about a max tax rate of 39% under Obama.  That is 3% more than now.  Under Reagan, the highest rate for six years of his term was 50%.  And in the first two years, it was 70%!

I'm pretty sure Reagan was a communist too.

Yes, I believe that the progressive tax system is more than fair.  Yes, I pay more than some people, as a percentage of my income.  But I have a lot more to pay.  On the fairness of it, I'll defer to Warren Buffett.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

im not calling anyone a communist. i'm remarking on how our country has taken a turn away from the views of our founding fathers when they inked the constitution and where we are headed as a nation.

Well, the rigorous ANTI-intellectualism of the current Republican party (political parties also being something many founders weren't fond of) would be demonized by almost every founding father, since the pursuit of knowledge was almost universally viewed as an eternal virtue. And many of them would never be elected today because they were "elitist" and many were not religious and most certainly NOT Christian.

Our tax system is far less progressive than it once was - and during the time when it was its most progressive (highest taxes on the rich), the middle class in this country grew like crazy. Correlation is not causation, for sure, but check out these tax rates:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Think about the years when they were 91 percent for the extremely rich (1951-1963). We weren't exactly hurting for economic growth...in fact, most Republicans view this era with great fondness for how well the economy and the middle class grew. Too bad it was "spreading the wealth around" that was a major contributor!

It's a typical Republican fallacy that this shit trickles down, because it most certainly doesn't, and the last 8 years are a perfect example.

I understand the merits and the apparent justice of a regressive or flat tax system - it just doesn't work in practice - it drives wealth to the already wealthy, and makes the middle class disappear.

I used to support the FairTax, and I've read all of Boortz's hogwash about it. It's a nice idea, but we're not all starting from zero, so it won't work. It will just grow the wealth divide again and ruin the middle class.

Tripper

chase — Nov 05, 2008[quote author=charger link=1225917010/0#1 date=1225918004]You are talking about a max tax rate of 39% under Obama.  That is 3% more than now.  Under Reagan, the highest rate for six years of his term was 50%.  And in the first two years, it was 70%!

I'm pretty sure Reagan was a communist too.

Yes, I believe that the progressive tax system is more than fair.  Yes, I pay more than some people, as a percentage of my income.  But I have a lot more to pay.  On the fairness of it, I'll defer to Warren Buffett.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

im not calling anyone a communist. i'm remarking on how our country has taken a turn away from the views of our founding fathers when they inked the constitution and where we are headed as a nation.

I heard the founding fathers also envisioned a country of 300 million people, superhighways, massive agricultural concerns, watering the deserts, and the Internet.  

Our founding fathers were wonderful men for their time, but to expect them to foresee 300 years of radical advancement in every field from agriculture to aerospace is a bit ludicrous.

Taken to the extreme, your view of limited government spending would mean the never-existence of things like computers and the internet.

i don't believe in taking things to the extreme. realistically what i would like to see a candidate do are these simple things in theory but impossible in reality


balance a federal budget
take a more non interventionalist role in foreign policy
pay down national debt
strengthen the dollar
reform (scale back) social programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid)


sounds alot like ron paul doesn't it...

Yeah, cause Bill Clinton gave away to many cigars. Socialist bastard he was. ;D ;D

chase — Nov 05, 2008i don't believe in taking things to the extreme. realistically what i would like to see a candidate do are these simple things in theory but impossible in reality


balance a federal budget
take a more non interventionalist role in foreign policy
pay down national debt
strengthen the dollar
reform (scale back) social programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid)


sounds alot like ron paul doesn't it...

Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, too...but most right-wing haters ignore those inconvenient truths...

Ron Paul '08!

'08? Oh, wait...

He should have run as a Libertarian or an independent...that was a big mistake on his part. Having him and Ralph Nader in the debates would have made them a lot more interesting.

Tripper

if your really interested why he didn't run as a lib. their are a few interviews asking him the very thing. bottom line he considered it, but didn't want to conform with some of their ideas so he stayed out.

bill clinton was never a choice this year

Tripper — Nov 06, 2008[quote author=chase link=1225917010/0#5 date=1225928930]i don't believe in taking things to the extreme. realistically what i would like to see a candidate do are these simple things in theory but impossible in reality


balance a federal budget
take a more non interventionalist role in foreign policy
pay down national debt
strengthen the dollar
reform (scale back) social programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid)


sounds alot like ron paul doesn't it...

Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, too...but most right-wing haters ignore those inconvenient truths...

Ron Paul '08!

'08? Oh, wait...

He should have run as a Libertarian or an independent...that was a big mistake on his part. Having him and Ralph Nader in the debates would have made them a lot more interesting.

Tripper

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.  He believes in making abortion illegal.  No libertarian believes in government control of any person's choices.

chase — Nov 06, 2008if your really interested why he didn't run as a lib. their are a few interviews asking him the very thing. bottom line he considered it, but didn't want to conform with some of their ideas so he stayed out.

Good to know. Thanks, Chase.
Tripper

chase — Nov 06, 2008bill clinton was never a choice this year

My point being the guy who most closely represents the same ideology as Clinton was Obama, even if his voting record in the Senate doesn't exactly demonstrate that.

The point that so many (especially on the right) miss is being a Senator and being a President require much different approaches.

You can be much more ideological as a Senator. Presidents have a responsibility to find the middle ground (unless they're President Bush, then they just say fuck you and anyone who disagrees will suffer).

Tripper

chase — Nov 05, 2008i don't believe in taking things to the extreme. realistically what i would like to see a candidate do are these simple things in theory but impossible in reality


balance a federal budget
take a more non interventionalist role in foreign policy
pay down national debt
strengthen the dollar
reform (scale back) social programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid)


sounds alot like ron paul doesn't it...

Bill Clinton did all these things except scale back social programs, I think.

Fingers.......I think Chase needs a dose of the graph.

Now Chase.....what did you say you were??? You sound much like a democrat, then you kill the idea by not agreeing with social programs. Why are you ageist helping the poor and older people? Am I wrong in my thinking about you? Or, wrong period? I don't get where your coming from.

Why in the world would you vote for McCain considering the list you made?

Did you vote for Bill Clinton?

Uh, chase was like 10 when Clinton ran.  He's mighty young to be so disillusioned.

;D ;D ;D

I didn't know that he was that young. Lucky bastard. ;D

I was pretty disillusioned in my twenties as well.  ;D ;D
I may still be. :)

Oh, you are. ;D ;D

I'm enchanted. :)

Or did I become  free from or deprived of illusion, belief, idealism, etc.; disenchant......When I was exposed to charger. ;D

pickmaster60 — Nov 07, 2008I was pretty disillusioned in my twenties as well.  ;D ;D
I may still be. :)

Must be, you still try to argue logic with Hook!  ;) :D

He just needs to argue consistently with logic. You know, not let illogical post I  purposely make drag him down an endless river of bullshit.  ;D ;D

I'd say Pick is 70% disillusioned and 30% "enchanted".  ;D ;D

Enchanted..... ;D ;D

Looky there, the math even works. ;D ;D

Looky there, the math even works.

Man, hanging out with the libs has made you smarter!   ;D

charger — Nov 06, 2008Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.  He believes in making abortion illegal.  No libertarian believes in government control of any person's choices.

ron paul falls into minarchism if you had to categorize him. i personally don't give a fuck what you call him. he has my support

Hookbender — Nov 06, 2008[quote author=chase link=1225917010/0#5 date=1225928930]i don't believe in taking things to the extreme. realistically what i would like to see a candidate do are these simple things in theory but impossible in reality


balance a federal budget
take a more non interventionalist role in foreign policy
pay down national debt
strengthen the dollar
reform (scale back) social programs (welfare, medicare, medicaid)


sounds alot like ron paul doesn't it...

Now Chase.....what did you say you were??? You sound much like a democrat, then you kill the idea by not agreeing with social programs. Why are you ageist helping the poor and older people? Am I wrong in my thinking about you? Or, wrong period? I don't get where your coming from.


if i were to categorize myself it would be minarchist. while cutting welfare, medicare, medicaid etc. wouldn't bother me ideologically i'm not so naive as to think that will ever happen. ensuring the money is spent where it is needed and not wasted is a much more challenging and realistic goal.

in my (apparently twisted, out of touch) view the government exists to provide protection for ones liberty and property. whats that mean?beyond courts, police, defense, prisons, and taxes the government needs to stay out of my business.

Hookbender — Nov 07, 2008He just needs to argue consistently with logic. You know, not let illogical post I  purposely make drag him down an endless river of bullshit.  ;D ;D

Hey...is that admitting you argue for no reason? ;D
Indication of your projection and obstinance ? ;D

I've yet to see you make a credible argument or any proof that I have been inconsistent.

I really haven't seen you make a consistent logical argument either. Yu certainly haven't done it with me. Your so obsessed with winning.....kinda get's in your way at times. You start off with logic, then you get emotional and it goes to crap. Not very consistent.

Hookbender — Nov 07, 2008I really haven't seen you make a consistent logical argument either. Yu certainly haven't done it with me. Your so obsessed with winning.....kinda get's in your way at times. You start off with logic, then you get emotional and it goes to crap. Not very consistent.

Care to back any of your statements up with facts?

Looks to me lthat when you know your losing an argument you become more and more obstinate and start calling names and try and change the subject.

You called tripper  emotional when you were wrong...he asked for you to show how and you wouldn't.

Hook talking to tripper in the "proof of the lessor of two evils" thread:

I've never seen you this illogical about a politician. Your emotions are really taking over with Obama and McCain. Dissapointing, coming from you.  

You expressing yourself in such a strong way is the result of emotion, not logic.

Now your doing the same with me.

You call people extreem liberals and bleeding heart liberals. ect. ect.

I really haven't seen you make a consistent logical argument either

Then it should be real easy to back up your claim.
Would you recognize a consistent arguement? ;D

If you keep this up...you may have to go here: ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1OPghQnS9w&feature=related

Then  ...when it's all over watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itrdGdZ06wc&feature=related

pickmaster60 — Nov 07, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1225917010/25#26 date=1226068711]I really haven't seen you make a consistent logical argument either. Yu certainly haven't done it with me. Your so obsessed with winning.....kinda get's in your way at times. You start off with logic, then you get emotional and it goes to crap. Not very consistent.

Care to back any of your statements up with facts?

Looks to me lthat when you know your losing an argument you become more and more obstinate and start calling names and try and change the subject.

You called tripper  emotional when you were wrong...he asked for you to show how and you wouldn't.

Hook talking to tripper in the "proof of the lessor of two evils" thread:

I've never seen you this illogical about a politician. Your emotions are really taking over with Obama and McCain. Dissapointing, coming from you.  

You expressing yourself in such a strong way is the result of emotion, not logic.

Now your doing the same with me.

You call people extreem liberals and bleeding heart liberals. ect. ect.

I really haven't seen you make a consistent logical argument either

Then it should be real easy to back up your claim.
Would you recognize a consistent arguement? ;D

If you keep this up...you may have to go here: ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1OPghQnS9w&feature=related

Then  ...when it's all over watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itrdGdZ06wc&feature=related



I think you have OCD. I really think you need to seek help.


"Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic anxiety disorder most commonly characterized by obsessive, distressing, intrusive thoughts and related compulsions. Compulsions are tasks or "rituals" which attempt to neutralize the obsessions. OCD is distinguished from other types of anxiety, including the routine tension and stress that appear throughout life. The phrase "obsessive-compulsive" has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed in a cause, or otherwise fixated on something or someone. Although these signs are often present in OCD, a person who exhibits them does not necessarily have OCD, and may instead have obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) or some other condition. Obsessive-compulsive disorder is very frustrating to the affected person and any friends and family."


Also, you make look at this as one of your problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_personality_disorder


Signs and symptoms
Individuals with DID demonstrate a variety of symptoms with wide fluctuations across time; functioning can vary from severe impairment in daily functioning to normal or high abilities. Symptoms can include:

multiple mannerisms, attitudes and beliefs that are dissimilar to each other
headaches and other body pains
distortion or loss of subjective time
depersonalization
amnesia
depression



Especially the first one....

multiple mannerisms, attitudes and beliefs that are dissimilar to each other

It's very appearent in Alabama that you are very inconsistent with your arguments. ;D Seriously!

Then it should be real easy to back up your claim.

DO IT! ;D Seriously!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

"a variety of pseudoscience: the behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics."
Arizona State University instructor Rochus Boerner describes pseudoskeptics as disbelievers, rather than nonbelievers, "characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong", a view shared by Princeton physicist Gregory N. Derry describing Creation Scientists' skepticism of science as ".. selected pseudoskepticism directed towards any ideas that disagree with their preconceived conclusions.


Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
The making of judgments without full inquiry
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it