MyRightWingDad.net: FWD: The thought for the day

FWD: The thought for the day

Subject: The thought for the day

81 comments:

Anonymous said...: Where's the thought?; 02 February, 2012 08:38
Anonymous said...: Nope. The purpose is to proscribe the powers of the government in order for it to function properly to serve its citizens.; 02 February, 2012 08:51
dodger said...: Yes, and those proscribed powers do not include stealing private property from individuals like Obama did with the bondholders and dealers at GM and Chrysler. They do not include the power to intervene in private contracts between private parties like Obama is proposing on home mortgages. And, most importantly, these proscribed powers do not include the stealing of local and state government's rights to govern.; 02 February, 2012 12:37
LiberalGunner said...: @dodger it it is okay to limit what people do in the bedroom, or what a woman does with her vagina, and tell us what god to pray to.; 02 February, 2012 13:02
gruaud said...: That is flat-out wrong.

Go read the 10th Amendment.; 02 February, 2012 16:12
dodger said...: The 10th amendment proves MY point. The 10th was specifically put into the Bill of Rights to protect individual States' rights from being trodden upon by the burgeoning federal government. The establishment of federal entities like Education, Housing, Transportation, and numerous other bureaucracies NOT sanctioned by the Constitution tread on States' rights on a daily basis and are therefore anti-Constitutional.

LiberalGunner: your point is illogical and not germane to my original comment. Where did I mention bedrooms or vaginas?; 02 February, 2012 18:47
dodger said...: LiberalGunner: And no it is not OK for the federal government to establish a "national religion" if that's what your diluted (deluded) point was supposed to be. That is strictly prohibited by the 1st amendment of the Constitution, which also calls for religious freedom. You liberals want to take away everyone's religious freedom and have succeeded in doing so on many fronts (e.g. no praying allowed in public schools).; 02 February, 2012 18:58
Ken said...: It's a Myth that Prayer is Banned in Public School
Praying is allowed in public schools as long as it is not lead by government employees
or so loud as to disrupt the education of others.; 02 February, 2012 19:34
Anonymous said...: Forcing kids to pray to jesus is religious freedom. Forcing them to pray to allah is SHARIA LAW !!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!; 02 February, 2012 19:42
dodger said...: I wasn't aware that the US federal government had any employees at our local public schools. Are they undercover?

Again, a states rights issue. The individual states, and by extension, the citizens of those states, have the power to decide if THEIR public employees can lead prayer in schools or not. This is not a power specifically designated to the federal government by the Constitution.; 02 February, 2012 19:55
Ken said...: State employees are government employees.

(This is not a power specifically designated to the federal government by the Constitution.)
According to you it’s not but so far according to the Supreme Court it is.; 02 February, 2012 20:25
dodger said...: Each State has its own Constitution and its own laws. The Supreme Court has overstepped its powers as identified in the Constitution many times as well. That doesn't make it right. On this particular issue, the Supreme Court has only been activist since the early 1960s. Prior to that, for 170 years, prayer led by school employees in America was not a problem. I'm not sure that I see the damage that would be caused if a future Supreme Court allowed individual states to make their own laws in this regard.; 02 February, 2012 20:48
Ken said...: I'm not sure that I see the damage that would be caused if a future Supreme Court allowed individual states to make their own laws in this regard.
And we could have sunday school every day.; 02 February, 2012 22:27
LiberalGunner said...: As a teacher I want to pick the prayer. One day Shinto, next day Islam, Judaism, and so on it could be fun.; 02 February, 2012 22:33
gruaud said...: It doesn't prove your point at all.

The federal government is the law of the land. 'State's rights' is just dog-whistle for confederate-talk.

You tried that in the 1860's. You lost. If you still don't like it, secede. We're better off without you.; 03 February, 2012 04:23
Groucho said...: Actually, the Constitution was drawn up to Increase the powers of the federal government, because the very weak central govt under the Articles of Confederation was a dismal failure; 03 February, 2012 07:02
dodger said...: Here's a history lesson for those of you that have been recently educated by our revisionist history books. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution after the fact. Proponents of the BOR felt that the Constitution should have statements related to citizen's rights. The original Constitution was created to define the LIMITED powers of the federal government. These LIMITED powers have been expanded by tyrants since the inception.

No it is not the federal government's job to guarantee equality of outcomes or to guarantee that our lives have zero risk.

And yes, we should avoid having prayer in schools. That gives us more time to teach children how to put condoms on cucumbers, about the global warming hoax and how to create riots like at Dekaney High School in Houston. It gives them more time to teach revisionist history on how Americans are evil and screwed every other civilization by stealing their land, stealing their natural resources etc.

And whoever suggested secession, we can solve this in a democratic fashion. There are more people in this country that agree with me than you. Why don't you secede and go somewhere where your ideas are more common among the people like Russia, Cuba or Venezuela? All of these places have overarching governments that "take care" of their people.; 03 February, 2012 10:09
Anonymous said...: Hey dodger, I'm wondering where you happened to buy a copy of the constitutiom with the supremecy claus edited out?

I don't suppose that same store has any readings on the 200+ years of historical interpretation, precedent and application of the constitution. Maybe next time try amazonm; 03 February, 2012 10:17
Anonymous said...: Dodger, I'm thinking the percentage of people who agree with you is right around 27. Hell, I'd bet money on it.; 03 February, 2012 10:22
Anonymous said...: Stupid internet phones with their misspellings! Damn this awful 21st century and its devilish ways!

Don't you agree dodger?; 03 February, 2012 10:26
Ken said...: There are more people in this country that agree with me than you.

If that’s true why aren’t all these problems you seem to think we have solved?; 03 February, 2012 10:33
blaney said...: Shorter Thought for Today:

EEEEK! There's an "N" word in the White House. booga booga Sharia Law!!!111!!!; 03 February, 2012 10:54
dodger said...: blaney: Did you think about that insightful comment all night?; 03 February, 2012 11:01
Anonymous said...: Guys, come on. First, the statement is kind of right. Portions of the U.S. Constitution do establish the limits of federal power. But other parts establish rights of the people. Other parts give the federal government specific obligations, and others leave certain powers to the state. It isn't one size fits your preconceived notion of government.

As for "state's rights", it is often used as a GOP slogan to do things that Democrats block at the federal level: gutting unions, voter rights, gay rights, etc. But, imagine a state like CA tried to do the opposite and ban gas cars sales. Wouldn't then the left argue state rights? We would. And, this is where the Supreme Court and the lesser courts come in. State ID laws? Might violate the federal law (and the 14th amendment). Over-zealous enviornmental regulation? Might violate the commerce clause. So, if we want to attack certain cases/statutes/policies fine, but some specificity would be nice; 03 February, 2012 11:02
dodger said...: Anonymous, how does it feel to pop off when you are WRONG? Polls show that at least 65% of Americans favor prayer in schools. I'm pretty sure that 65% of Americans is a number greater than 27. Sorry for your ignorance. You can read the links below to become informed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/february_2011/65_of_americans_favor_prayer_in_public_schools

http://www.gallup.com/poll/18136/Public-Favors-Voluntary-Prayer-Public-Schools.aspx

Not to worry, my copy of the Constitution has the supremacy clause (Article VI for those of you who weren't taught it in 8th grade). One of the problems that America has is that we are being governed outside of the rule of law. Examples: 1. US government sues the state of Arizona for creating a law that mimics federal laws that are not being enforced by the federal government 2. EPA declares CO2 (which we all exhale) as a pollutant subject to regulation under the "clean air act". 3. Congress won't pass my "I want it now Act"? No problem, I'll write an executive order. Need more supremacy guy?

As far as the teacher goes, yes the students could learn about all of the religions of the world like they learn about world history or world cultures. Private schools teach such things and statistically output a better product. Again, where is the harm?; 03 February, 2012 11:22
Ken said...: http://www.gallup.com/poll/18136/Public-Favors-Voluntary-Prayer-Public-Schools.aspx

In the spirit of being more specific lets introduce some specifics of the polls.
Voluntary & Moment of Silence.; 03 February, 2012 11:43
Anonymous said...: Hey Dodger... wouldn't you be more comfortable over at the Fox forum? They've got a big republican circle jerk going on over there 24-7. Just tap your foot under the stall to get in. They LOVE calling the President a N-word and agree with virtually everything you say, you'll love it.

You're not converting anyone here to your way of thinking, but thanks for trying.; 03 February, 2012 12:38
dodger said...: Yes. Specifically "A clear majority of Americans, 60%, believe religion has "too little" presence. These views are similar to those expressed in a 2001 Gallup survey"

Activist rulings from SCOTUS have attacked the sensibilities of those 60% over and over again. Examples: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: where a student (not a government employee) was disallowed from offering prayer before a football game. Engel v. Vitale: which struck down the ability for public schools to recite a generic, non-denominational, prayer each day prior to starting school. Lee v. Weisman where SCOTUS ruled that a clergy person (not a government employee) could not offer a prayer before a high school graduation ceremony. Need more?

The federal government banning school prayer is not a myth.; 03 February, 2012 12:58
Thx 4 Fish said...: Solution for dodger, concerned about prayer in schools. Send your kids to religious schools. They can pray every day, go to chapel, and sing religious songs. There are NO laws prohibiting sending your kids to religious schools! This is the foundation of religious freedom. But when you want to make ALL kids pray religious prayers, then that is the opposite of religious freedom. You are confusing freedom to worship with freedom to proselytize. If your religion is important to you, you will put some effort into it and not expect the government to provide you time and space to practice your faith every single day. Be responsible pray on your own!; 03 February, 2012 14:01
dodger said...: Answer to Thx4fish. Having a clergyman, student or other person, say a prayer before school starts, before a football game, at a graduation ceremony or when studying the worlds religions is not forcing anyone to listen, pray or proselytize. SCOTUS has in effect made laws that prohibit these forms of expression which restrict our freedoms.

Why does your interpretation of freedom run on a one way street: your way?

Great suggestion on private school. Let's flip it around. How about if you who are offended by public religious expressions in or around school, since you are in the minority, send your kids to a private school where your kids will be guaranteed to have no chance of being exposed to such expressions? Or if you think that that is too extreme, how about if our governments give us the true economic freedom to choose whatever school we want for our children? These seem like more democratic solutions to the problem rather than having the minority dictate all of the rules to the rest of us as it is now?; 03 February, 2012 14:46
blaney said...: Dear Dodger:

Yes, I staying up for many nights "thinking up" my response, above. I had to really think deeply about that one, believe me.

But hey: if the shoe fits 'n all...; 03 February, 2012 15:07
Anonymous said...: Hey dodger, large majorities also suppoert higher taxes for the wealthy. Should we listen to them?; 03 February, 2012 15:17
Anonymous said...: Dodger, you do realize that the original peole wanting to ban prayer in schools were christians who didn't want their kids being forced to pray evil catholic prayerss, right? Do you also realize that a lot of the movement for speration of church and state was driven by anti catholic bigotry by protestants?; 03 February, 2012 15:26
Anonymous said...: So let me get this straight dodger: you expect me to pay taxes to teach kids religious views of which I don't approve?; 03 February, 2012 15:29
Ken said...: There is no end to the number of different religions and there are plenty of fanatics in each one that will nit pick until they put their religion ahead of everyone else. For this reason alone religion should be kept out of politics
. I’m not saying many of the traits of a religious person have no place in politics sure you want someone who is fair, compassionate, truthful etc all traits most of us would attribute to a religious person but the nit picking that accompanies the fanatics in every religion can be avoided by just keeping it out of the public schools and any other compulsory situations dealing with government we have to deal with. We’ve all seen those who can’t finish a sentence without saying praise god these types never seem to convince anyone to come to their views there the ones that push to the limit until the court has to make a decision. Surely it’s not too much to ask one to put religion aside long enough to learn how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide who knows some may even learn how to make change without a computer.; 03 February, 2012 15:41
dodger said...: News FLASH: Catholics are Christians. The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution.

The first SCOTUS case that I am familiar with on this issue was McCollum v. Board of Education in the 1940s. In this case a group of Protestant, Jewish and Catholic educators, who were not government employees, created religious classes and offered them to students on a VOLUNTARY basis in Champaign, IL. Voluntary means that students that did not want to attend these classes, were not forced to attend. Because of ONE atheist mother, religious freedom was stolen from all of the students and parents that chose to be in the voluntary classes.

On taxes supporting the teaching of religious views: How about if we remove schools from the taxation picture altogether? You pay for your school, I'll pay for mine. That way, you won't have to pay taxes for religious teachings and I won't have to pay taxes to teach children how to put a condom on a cucumber, or pay taxes for schools to show Al Gore's BS movie to children, or pay taxes to schools that teach revisionist history to impressionable children. Based upon the person that didn't know that Catholics were Christians, maybe we should be teaching students about the differences in the world's religions like we attempt to teach them about cultural differences.

On taxation of the wealthy: Where have you been? Where do you draw the line for "wealthy"? 47% of Americans pay $0 in federal income taxes. Americans that make over $50K per year comprise 34% of the population yet pay 93% of the federal income tax. Americans that make over $100K per year comprise 21% of the population, yet pay 74% of the federal income tax. Americans that make over $1M per year comprise 0.3% of the population yet pay 20% of the federal income tax. Our taxation system already works the way that you, and the majority, propose. Want it to be fair? How about a flat federal income tax at 15% of income? That would represent a tax increase to 97% of Americans.; 03 February, 2012 16:29
Blaney said...: Dearest Dodger:

Do you believe that the earth is flat, and that dragons exist beyond the horizon? Inquiring minds need to know.

Eagerly awaiting your response to see if you say anything original, or if you just quote El Lushbo verbatim on this topic as well.; 03 February, 2012 16:48
dodger said...: blaney: Again, I am amazed at the amount of thought and consideration that goes into your posts. Your mouse gonad sized brain must be working overtime to come up with these.; 03 February, 2012 16:57
Ken said...: @dodger:I’ve come to the conclusion you’re one of those I referred to earlier. Look we’ve got one foot in the door with this Voluntary & Moment of Silence lets try to get both in OK were all the way in since the door is already open lets just take it off the hinges dam we need a larger door. This is why we have separation of church and state.; 03 February, 2012 17:08
blaney said...: My dear Dodger,

Duly noted that you didn't answer my question.

Chicken? Or did El Lushbo not give an answer to those questions, yet?

Thanks for the memories, etc.; 03 February, 2012 17:32
blaney said...: PS Dodger: how do you know the size of my gonads? Was that you taking a peek the other week in the bathroom?

Naughty boy!; 03 February, 2012 17:35
dodger said...: Ken. Again, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. The first Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." SCOTUS, in each of the cases that I quoted, has prohibited the free exercise of religious speech. You, apparently, also want to prohibit this free exercise. Why are you against freedom?; 03 February, 2012 17:39
dodger said...: Blaney: You should (slowly) read my post again. No mention of your gonads there, just comparing the size of your brain to those of a mouse. You, pretty much, prove my point.; 03 February, 2012 17:47
Anonymous said...: Catholics are christians... Exceept that plenty of christians don't think so, and plenty of catholics are happy to claim theirs is the one true faith. And of course all of them are happy to condemn the others as unbelievers destined for hell.

These are facts. Vicious, fanatical, blood soaked facts. Now tell me, which sect are we supposed to promote with public dollars? And how do you think the other parts of the population will take this decision?; 03 February, 2012 17:47
Anonymous said...: Dodger, you didn't answer my question: since you seem to think majority should always have sway, and the vast majority of americans want higher taxes on the wealthy, shouldn't we do that?; 03 February, 2012 17:52
blaney said...: Artful Dodger: still dodging my questions. Quelle surprise!; 03 February, 2012 17:54
Anonymous said...: World religions should be taught in schools. Of course, that's academics, not religion, and there still would be no prayer in the classroom.

And I would give such a program about 1 say before christian fanatics started complaining about their kids getting indotrinated into "false" religions (you know, like catholicism or mormonism, which plenty of christians dismiss as cults).; 03 February, 2012 17:57
dodger said...: I did answer your question. We already have disproportionately higher taxes on the wealthy (as my statistics from the IRS prove). You already have what you, and the majority, want.

You didn't answer my question. What do you consider wealthy? What tax rate should they pay?; 03 February, 2012 18:00
dodger said...: OK blaney. Time to set the bong aside for awhile.; 03 February, 2012 18:03
Anonymous said...: No, you didn't answer it. Polls show that people want those taxes to be even higher than they are now. You know, like what they were during the cold war and the space race when our economy was expanding and we were creating, rather than destroying, the strongest middle class in history.

What's wealthy? Mitt romney and his carried interest.; 03 February, 2012 18:17
Anonymous said...: Your dodges reveal your answer: public opinion is fine when u want to misinterpret it in order to subvert the constituion. Whem its supports a policy you don't care for then we can ignore it.

In other words, perfect wingnut.; 03 February, 2012 18:20
ferschitz said...: dodger:

"We already have disproportionately higher taxes on the wealthy (as my statistics from the IRS prove). You already have what you, and the majority, want."

No, your stats from the IRS merely prove that fed taxes on *earned* income is taxed at progressively higher levels up to a mere 35% for those *earning* income from $379,150 and up to ??? whatever. These are the lowest fed tax rates in our nation's history, much lower than at any other time, thanks largely to Reagan, Bush, Bush & Obama.

Over the past 30 years, regular wages & salaries for the middle to lower classes have either stagnated or declined, while US workers continue to be some of the most productive world-wide.

Yet someone making as low as approx $175,000 per year is only taxed at a somewhat lower rate than someone earning multi-millions per year.

I, for one, simply do not "have what I want" in terms of federal tax rates. Where did you come up with that idea??

Beyond all of this, citizens are taxed in various ways other than federal taxes on income. Guess it's a surprise to you that these taxes are very regressive, such as payroll taxes, state & local taxes, utility taxes, taxes on gas and other consumables, which fall much harder on middle & low income earners than they do on mega-millions income earners.

It's really nifty-neaty how all of you "libertarians" conveniently & consistently ignore a plethora of other taxes that all citizens do pay, when you commence to whining about how egregious federal income taxes allegedly are.

What do I consider wealthy? These days, the mega-wealthy, fyi, would snear at a mere six figure salary. Those in the 1% who actually earn income do so in the millions, if not billions.

Is that wealthy enough for you?

Why should I be paying a tax rate similar to someone who makes $10 or $20 or $50 million per year?? How is THAT fair?

Final question: why is it so incredibly important to YOU, dodger, to give the 1% such a huge break on their federal taxes?

What? Do you actually believe that someday, somehow you, too, will make mega-millions every year??? And if so, you don't want to have be "bothered" paying your fair share??; 03 February, 2012 18:23
Anonymous said...: If you don't want your kid in public school, fine: send them to private school. Or homeschool them. Or take them off to life in the woods for all I care.

In the meantime the rest of us are trying to have a 21st century society here, and we thank you for leaving us alone.; 03 February, 2012 18:28
ferschitz said...: On another note, most of the .000025% - such as Mitt Romeny - simply do not work AT ALL, and they "make money" because of their mega-billion$$ in investments.

Might surprise dodger to learn that investment "income" is taxed at a mere 15% or less, as has been highligted by Mitt Romeny's tax reports for 2010 & 2011, whereby he was only taxed at 13.2%.

Are you "satisified" with mega-gazillionaires who don't work, who aren't productive, who were pretty much born into wealth, who have giant "investments," which are only taxed at 15% or lower??

You know, it was in 1997 when Clinton lowered Captal Gains taxes from 28% to 20%. It was under Bush that Cap. Gains taxes were lowered again to 15%.

How is this FAIR? How does this make any sense?

Disclaimer: I happen to have investments, and I "benefit" from the lower Cap Gains tax rate. Yet I very advocate for increasing Cap Gains tax rates.

Not everyone is a selfish and not wishing to share.; 03 February, 2012 18:31
blaney said...: Oh Dodging Artfully: you have a bong?? Don't bogart that bong, my friend!

Ooops forgot (probably because I am so stow-woned): you don't want to share anything!; 03 February, 2012 18:34
LiberalGunner said...: You guys are great; 03 February, 2012 18:50
ferschitz said...: Damn! Why is it every time I get into these "conversations," I, uh, start bringing up facts, and suddenly the libertarians flee???

How on earth anyone can say that most US citizens are "satisfied" with present fed income tax rates is beyond me. I sure don't know anyone who is.

Occupy Dodger!; 03 February, 2012 18:55
dodger said...: Ferschitz. You need some facts? Per the IRS data at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls. The people with an AGI of $175K per year have an average federal income tax rate at 11.9%. People in the multi-millions (up to 10 million) pay 25%. That's a >100% difference (double). Is that a small difference? The average dips down at the $10M and over to 23% for those very fortunate 8,274 taxpayers.

What will you, personally, get if those 8,274 are taxed at say 70%? Will you be happier? You have an attitude that all of the money earned in this country somehow belongs to the whole and that it is yours to decide how it gets split.

With the exception of SS payroll tax, all of the "regressive" taxes that you mentioned are also progressive. The more you make, the more you use, the more you pay in taxes on those items.

I'm not sure what you mean by a tax break. The term break would say that these 1% pay less than the other 99%. That is simply not true.; 03 February, 2012 19:02
dodger said...: Ferschitz. I think that what you really want is for the federal government to confiscate the accumulated wealth from some group of Americans and pass it around. Go live in Cuba, Russia, or China. That's the way it is in those places.

All of you occupy morons think that you are entitled to something without working for it. You think you deserve to start day 1 of your adult life with a six figure income and have all of your needs tended to by the federal government. We all have the same opportunity to become wealthy. Go read the book "The millionaire next door." Learn how these people became millionaires. I'll give you a hint, they worked hard and saved their money. Put into practice what those people did. You'll find it much more satisfying than whining about some rich guy's tax rate.

Oh wait, if you were able to save a million dollars, you'd still be dissatisfied because your neighbor had two million.; 03 February, 2012 19:18
Ken said...: doger:I’m not against freedom just your interpretation of it; 03 February, 2012 19:26
gruaud said...: "All of you occupy morons think that you are entitled to something without working for it. You think you deserve to start day 1 of your adult life with a six figure income and have all of your needs tended to by the federal government."

You really have no idea what #occupy is all about, do you? Except what the billionaires are paying the millionaires to tell you on your TV.

I read 'The Millionaire Next Door' and I practice a lot of what it preaches. And, yeah, we're debt free. I worked my ass off to get there.

I also think that taxes and social programs that help the disenfranchised are a requirement for a CIVILIZED society.

And I also think using piles of cash to game the system to make mountains of cash at the expense of the rest of us is not only downright piggish, it's evil.; 03 February, 2012 19:35
dodger said...: Ken. That feeling is mutual.; 03 February, 2012 19:39
dodger said...: gruaud Occupy can protest all they want but there will NEVER be economic and social equality. It is a fact of life. It's yin and yang. You can't have rich without poor. You can't have social justice without social injustice. You can't have big without small.......

Game the system? So, if I take my pile of money and invest it into something that doubles it over some period of time and I do that 5 times in my lifetime (making a multiplier of 32x), I am gaming the system and have made that money at the expense of the rest of everyone else?

If I earn and save up $30M in my lifetime and then pass it off to my kids and grand kids, I am somehow gaming the system at the expense of others?

If you answer yes, then we disagree.

Taxes and social programs are NOT the best way to assist others in need. Our federal government has spent Trillions in "the war on poverty" since 1964 and we still have the same number of people in poverty. Given the results, I would conclude that those programs are not working. Private charities have a much better track record for effectiveness than our federal government has. To prove this, ask yourself if you had an extra $1,000 to give to help the poor, would you give it to the government or to a private charity?

Giving it to the government would reduce your tax liability $1 for every $1 given, where giving to a charity would only reduce your tax liability by your effective rate X 1,000. Maybe that is the reason that all of those blowhards like Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Jay-Z say that they are willing to pay more but don't do so as a gift.; 03 February, 2012 20:40
Anonymous said...: Dodger, I don't want taxation like they have in cuba or russia. I would like taxation like they had in... America. Under eisenhower. Dirty fucking commie that he was, daring to tax the rich as part of building a robust and healthy economy!; 03 February, 2012 20:44
Anonymous said...: We never spent trillions on the war on poverty. Unless you include things like medicare, which does indeed lift tens of millions of seniors out of poverty by allowing them access to affordable health care.

Its also stupid to blame the great society whem it was never really put into effect. It started to be gutted as soon as nixon, and the the decades since domestic social spending has been continually cut while tax cuts have been given to the top of the food chain. That, combined with the negative changes in our economy have hurt millions.

And no, I'm not one of them. I do quite well for myself. But I also realize we cannot be a strong country forever continuing these trends.; 03 February, 2012 20:51
Anonymous said...: Gaming the system is what mitt romney did when he and his firm spent millions to lobby congress to ensure that they had their carried interest loophole.

Or its the same group of crooks bankupting a company and then stealing off into the night with their looted millions, leaving a defunded pension and a bunch of jobless folks in their wake. That's gaming the system.

And yes, taking part in the blessings of this country and its govenrment while activley working to destroy it and not pay your fair share is pretty much the definition of gaming the system.; 03 February, 2012 21:48
gruaud said...: Great responses by the previous anons.

Investing in the stock market isn't 'gaming the system', dodger. Most of us here invest in the markets. Jesus Christ, think bigger picture. Wall Street defrauded millions of investors and the banks have repeatedly demonstrated massive corruption. Enron was just the tip of the iceberg. This could have been avoided had the legislators in congress not deregulated the shit out of everything.

Taxes and social programs do work. The New Deal demonstrated that decisively. And the War on Poverty showed steady, positive results before the plug was pulled.; 04 February, 2012 07:24
Anonymous said...: Dodger,

This: (which you said)
"Occupy can protest all they want but there will NEVER be economic and social equality. It is a fact of life. It's yin and yang. You can't have rich without poor. You can't have social justice without social injustice."

is inconsistent with this (which you think belongs in school prayers every day):

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/newtestament/

Personally, I think both are nuts on their own, but TOGETHER?

You might benefit from this:

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/01/conspiracy-theorists-more-likely-to-believe-factual-contradictions/

(I hope I didn't offend anybody except Dodger with the flippant "nuts" bit. There are so many awesome things about Christianity, even though I no longer believe in it, and it bothers me so much when someone advocates using public school as a way of preaching it with NONE of those good parts. I don't want it preached in public school with them, but without them... GRRR.); 04 February, 2012 07:33
Anonymous said...: You can't have social justice without social injustice.

What pithy nonsense. Justice is not "justice" if it is injustice. I suspect what you mean is that those who have, cannot trample those who have not, in the way to which they are accustomed.

If I earn and save up $30M in my lifetime and then pass it off to my kids and grand kids, I am somehow gaming the system at the expense of others?

If you earn $30 million (I presume with the aid of lesser-taxed investments), you have earned over 1100 times the average American's salary. Do you believe your "effort" is worth the work of a thousand Americans? Have your children earned it when you pass it on to them?

It also means you are somewhere above the top 0.1% of all Americans. It is impossible for all but the top echelons of American society and a lucky few entrepreneurs to gain that much wealth. Figures 4A and 4B in this study are particularly illuminating.

Also take note of the other figures, which indicate the growing disparity between the fabulously rich and the rest of us, which continues to separate the average American from any hope of gaining wealth. In the post-war era, any American truly could climb the economic ladder. Now, those opportunities are sealed off as financial hijinks and the rentier class bleed the rest of us dry.; 04 February, 2012 07:44
dodger said...: I can honestly say that I haven't seen a larger amount of Marxist claptrap since I studied Marx at university. I'm hoping that most of these comments are coming from good little Marxists in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela etc. and not from within the US.

Quit whining, and demonstrating your envy, about all the things that some millionaire or billionaire has and put that effort into going out to get a piece of that action for yourselves.

New Deal a good thing? Let's take a look at the highlights:
1. Abandoned the gold standard for US currency.
2. Social Security - Giant Ponzi scheme that took 80 years to implode. Bankrupt in 2037 (and that date keeps moving closer as the payroll tax holiday is extended).
3. Medicare - Bankrupt in 2017
4. FHA, FNMA - Responsible for setting the policies that created the US economic meltdown of 2008.
5. HUD - Famous for building Cabrini - Green in Chicago a series of high rise mansions that provided shelter to rapists, meth labs and gangs.
6. Created numerous federal government bureaucracies that are not sanctioned by the Constitution.; 04 February, 2012 12:56
ferschitz said...: I guess "dodger" earned his troll dollars today, esp if s/he's paid by the word pooped out from the keyboard.

It's not worth parsing through all that shit, bc clearly "doger's" one-stop shopping "answer" for everything is that we're all a bunch of "commies" who, fer the love the dog, should "go back to Russia." knock knock yoo hoo: Russia is no longer a "commie" country, but hey: factual reality hasn't penetrated "doger's" bullshit rightwing talking points, which is all we've gotten from this troll so far.

I think Blaney is correct in asking: hey Dodger: does ya believes that the earth is flat and dragons lie in wait beyond the horizon???; 04 February, 2012 13:26
gruaud said...: Yeah, sure you studied Marxism at university. Social-democrats and social-democracies are not the same things as Marxism. But in your blinkered world view, anything left of free-market Capitalism is by definition Marxist.

And, yeah, sure you understand how the New Deal works, since all of your assertions are either half-baked, slippery-slope or flat out incorrect.

Are all libertarians as full of shit as you are?; 04 February, 2012 13:42
ferschitz said...: Hey gruaud: doncha just LOVE it when all of these libertarian trolls claim that they "studied Marxism at university"???

How many libertarian trolls have you seen making this claim??

I've seen (quite honestly) *at least* 12 libertarian trolls (well, it could be just one human being with 12 blog handles, so who knows?) who, one & all, make the specious claim that they "studied Marxism" in college.

What a laugh! Like, what: did some history class or another make a passing reference to Karl Marx, and they just happened to attend the class that day?? I'd be surprised if even that happpened.

As for me: I just sit around *all day* reading Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (in the original Deutsch, naturlich), with my "hand out" whilst expecting from birth that I should get a "six figure income" for doing nothing!! What about you, gruaud?? Does this describe your life, too??

"Yeah, yeah: doing nothing but get at least six figures for it!! That's the ticket!!!" George W. Bush; 04 February, 2012 14:14
Anonymous said...: The gold standard was abandoned in 1971.

Social security will not go bankrupt in 2037.

The crash of 2008 was fueled by wall street greed and a failure of market oversight.

Which university did you go to again, dodger? I think you ought to ask for a tuition refund, since your arguments fall apart almost immediately.; 04 February, 2012 16:20
Hooray4US said...: The notion that Soc Sec & Medicare are about to explode or implode or go bankrupt or whatever can be easily remedied by raising the payroll tax caps, which are regressive.

Raise the caps, and in the case of Soc Sec, do away with the cap altogether, and et voila: problem solved.

Another stupid rightwing talking point "argument" that doesn't hold water, if one does a little thinking.

Right now the income cap on the Soc Sec payroll tax deductions is around $105k. As has been pointed out by others, there's a significant enough portion of citizens earning way more than that. Why aren't they paying their fair share?

Oh, I forgot. By some weird logic, it's only "fair" if the middle and working classes pay more, proportionately, than our wealthy "betters" do. It is unclear why such a concept is considered: a) communism (go back to your pick of: China, Russia or Cuba), b) marxism (which apparently only libertarians "study" in college), and/or c) that anyone not making more that $105k/year is a lazy slacker looking for handout and expecting a six figure income since birth.

Whatever... the so-called "facts" or "arguments" have continued to make no sense.; 04 February, 2012 17:07
Anonymous said...: Quit whining, and demonstrating your envy, about all the things that some millionaire or billionaire has and put that effort into going out to get a piece of that action for yourselves.

Nice to see you ignored my links. This is not possible unless you come from a rich family or win the CEO lottery. And it's certainly not possible for even a whole percent of Americans to pull off, since that money is being sucked into the pockets of companies who aren't hiring and benefits for the wealthiest. I'd point to GINI, but of course you don't want to hear about reality.

And where do you think all these millions of dollars for every American will come from? We can't all be magical captains of industry whose toenail clippings could feed a starving nation.

We abandoned the gold standard? Good, because it helped cause the Great Depression.; 04 February, 2012 18:14
gruaud said...: @ ferschitz: Put it this way: I wasn't born on third and thought I'd hit a triple.; 04 February, 2012 18:58
dodger said...: Had to leave to get some work done. It's tiring, and time consuming, arguing with obtuse ignoramuses. Anonymous (coward) Ever hear of "The Gold Reserve Act" of 1934? "The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. " Prior to that "A year earlier, in 1933, Executive Order 6102 had made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector's coins." 1971, 1933 same difference?

"Raise taxes" the solution to all of SS problems? Ready to be educated? From the SSA themselves, look it up: Chris Chaplain, Actuary, and Alice H. Wade, Deputy Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration, "Estimated Long-Range OASDI Financial Effects of Eliminating the OASDI contribution and Benefit Base." "SSA's actuarial study showed that that eliminating the payroll tax cap entirely would only delay the start of Social Security's annual deficits by six years, from 2018 to 2024." Read that and then do some thinking.

I have my Social Security Statement from 2010 right here. It says "In 2016 we will begin paying more benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund" [doesn't exist] "will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." Whose argument is falling apart? And for 2011: "After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year" Usually, when an entity can't pay their obligations, we call that bankrupt. Maybe you should get a refund from your school, or maybe they can give you a remedial reading lesson for free to get you up to 6th grade level! Ouch that's got to hurt.; 09 February, 2012 20:33
gruaud said...: Well, well; if it isn't our favorite crank.

Everyone here is aware of the Gold Reserve Act. That didn't mean that we went off the gold standard. It just meant that economists realized that gold is finite and basing a monetary standard on a metal (why not osmium?) would eventually strangle an economy that needed room to grow if it was to climb out of the morass. Had the act not been passed, the Depression would have been prolonged. Nixon finally pulled the plug because the US gold reserves were being siphoned off by foreign arbitrage (Europe, in particular -- especially Switzerland) at an alarming rate. The US would have been ruined.

As for your pants-pissing over raising taxes and social security and the statement of the two actuaries: Jesus Christ, did you read the actual memo or did you just read what Heritage Foundation cherry-picked for you?

Here's the memo:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/Kolbe_20040211.html

It offers long-range solutions based on a variety of tweaks. This has been happening since the program's inception. Nothing to crap your britches about.

And then you rail about your SS statement not even realizing that the answer is staring you in the face: we simply need to make changes to keep the program solvent long-term.

Here's the full text of the SSA analysis:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Chart 8 is what your SS statement is referring to.

As for 2037, I would surmise that you haven't a thing to worry about, so just cash your checks and quit your bellyaching.; 09 February, 2012 23:03
Anonymous said...: Ever hear of "The Gold Reserve Act" of 1934?

Yup. I also know that it didn't end the gold standard, it was ended in 1971. Thanks for playing.

It says "In 2016 we will begin paying more benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund" [doesn't exist] "will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits."

Yup, and at or before that point we can either adjust benefits, raise taxes, or do both, or do nothing. Whatever we do, SS will not add one damn dime to the deficit. If it only pays out 76 cents on the dollar in 25+ year, so be it, its still 76 cents of benefits lifting seniors out of poverty and helping to fuel our economy.

This has happened before, Dodger. SS has been adjusted multiple times over its lifetime, always in the face of some long term issue. Its fine, somehow we always manage to make things work.

Of course now the GOP has taken up this fake crisis as a rallying cry to cut SS benefits in order to pay off the deficit (which isn't affected one damn bit by SS, and which was created by their decades of shitty policies). But that's fine, because we all know that they don't really give a shit about the deficit either, its just a way for them to funnel what little isn't nailed down upwards to the 1%.

Also, the trust fund does exist, otherwise your 2037 number doesn't work either. Idiots like you claim it doesn't exist because its in IOUs, but of course those IOUs are government issued bonds. If those don't have real value, I'd suggest you go find any savings bonds you have lying around and burn them for kindling, since they aren't worth anything either.; 10 February, 2012 00:18
blaney said...: Shorter Dodger:

Fap fap fap; 10 February, 2012 14:10