I can understand that some Republicans want to have a free lunch and they don't want to share it with other Americans. I understand why they want to be the only ones taking advantage of government programs and bailouts and their lack of regard for regular folks. It is in their best interest!


Having a government that works for all the people instead of the handpicked and select few is communism.

"What I don't get is why regular people who have no prayer in hell of ever achieving the kind of wealth that justifies the right wing rhetoric support those ideas!!!!!!!!!!"

AMEN! This attitude is rampant on this site amongst the righties.

"Having a government that works for all the people instead of the handpicked and select few is communism."


No taking away from the few and forcing them into the many is socialism. Don't worry thats nothing like... ohhh uh never mind.

""What I don't get is why regular people who have no prayer in hell of ever achieving the kind of wealth that justifies the right wing rhetoric support those ideas!!!!!!!!!!" "


That would be selflessness and enough brain cells to realize that chiping away the foundation that our civilization is built on is folly.
As opposed to those who only support thing that help themselves and believe that it is worth loosing the ideals we hold just to save a few bucks, which, many are two shortsighted to see, will only cost them more.

I'm not a Republican, but it's also not in my "best interest" to tax the hell out of hard working, successful people so that I can have a free lunch.

The popular image among Democrats is that 'the rich' are all lazy and sneaky investment bankers skimming the cream. Most millionaires are small business owners working 60-70 hours a week.

The average small business employs 8 people. When you punish business owners it's the employees who suffer.

That said, Republican rhetoric is tiresome. They promise smaller government but then do just the opposite. At least Democrats promise to raise taxes and then keep their promise

As small business owners we had the privilege of taking on debt/risk and working 70 hour weeks to pay those "rich" people taxes .Then had the privilege of paying those rich people capital gains. Don't be so jealous...go ahead...you can do it too. Instead you covet and envy.

Go ahead...kill small business then bitch when you don't have jobs.

Posted by vernon at 2008-05-20 01:49 PM


Agreed!

As small business owners we had the privilege of taking on debt/risk and working 70 hour weeks to pay those "rich" people taxes .Then had the privilege of paying those rich people capital gains.

Posted by kerrin57

If you want to petition for a re-evaluation of how taxes are done, maybe to work a $/hour component in, a redefinition of what a tax bracket is based on, then I'd be right there with you. Your time invested should mean something.

If it takes you 70 hours a week to earn what others do in 40, maybe you should get a little understanding for that.

Though you understand that the people who earn the same in less time will argue you don't deserve it. That they shouldn't be penalized because you can't figure out how to do better. In their eyes, you will be the welfare freeloader.

Did you see the story of the small business owner who had a major medical emergency and had to sell the business to pay the medical bills, after which he wasn't able to get medical insurance anymore? Do you know how many families are one step away from financial ruin because of medical emergencies or loss of a job? How many American people including small business owners lose their jobs, their houses, and their hopes? Nobody is arguing for socialism because it clearly doesn't work; however, I don't think that the founding fathers dreamed about a society in which a few do very well, and everybody else is in pain. Maybe that was worked 100 years ago, but it sure seems impropriate today.

Those who think that voting for right wings ideas means selflessness are brainwashed, and display an amazing inability to think for themselves. They are acting against their own self-interest, which is kind of amazing and anti capitalistic as well.

Warren Buffet himself said that he pays fewer taxes than his secretary and he finds that ridiculous. "Taxing the hell out of hard working people?" - What the hell are you talking about? The superrich work very hard, but they pay less taxes than many people that work as hard as them but don't stand a chance of having their needs met. You want to glorify that? Is this the ideal that the fathers had in mind? Proposing to keep the tax system tilted towards the rich only magnifies the income gap that is growing to ridiculous magnitude, and it doesn't help in the long run. After all, if you knock down the majority people, you knock down the majority of consumers and you end up knocking the economy; everybody will be affected except the top few percents. Do you think that the founding fathers had Latin type capitalism in mind? I don't think so.

The big free lunch in this country is the free lunch of the superrich, the huge handouts, subsidies, bailouts, tax loopholes, and so forth, which they are taking advantage off. The so-called "free lunch" name that is given by some to social safety nets is a misnomer; social nets only make this a civilized country, aligned with other civilized countries in the world, and make possible a prosperous America that would retain the leadership in the world. We are falling further behind precisely because the leadership has taken their eyes of the ball, and let everything decay while protecting the interests of only a few.

"That said, Republican rhetoric is tiresome. They promise smaller government but then do just the opposite. At least Democrats promise to raise taxes and then keep their promise

Posted by vernon at 2008-05-20 01:49 PM"

This is correct, in more ways than one. Tax rates matter, in a sense, but really only in how much of gov't spending each generation is going to pay. The Republican model of spending like drunken sailors, but refusing to raise taxes to pay for the spending, is just a way for them to have their cake, eat it too, and then give the bill to our children. At least Democrats have the balls to raise taxes to pay for the spending they advocate. The idea that Republicans, because they don't have the political balls to pay as they go are somehow more fiscally conservative is a joke.

Hag...you don't make sense.

"he superrich work very hard, but they pay less taxes than many people that work as hard as them but don't stand a chance of having their needs met. You want to glorify that? Is this the ideal that the fathers had in mind?"


Um yes. Or at least you can be damn sure they wouldn't condone stealing from one man so another can profit. When you let your selfishness get in the way of someones else's life you seriously need to rethink your values. There is no robin hood, and we sure as hell don't want the government to start playing him.

I would really like to know what you mean by "stealing from one man so another can profit". Everybody pays taxes. The only people who really have access to loopholes and other ways to avoid paying taxes are the very rich. If you talk about selfishness and stealing from others, it definitely applies to them!

Look, I have nothing against the very rich. I wouldn't mind being one myself. I am in awe of Mr. Buffet. I just don't think that turning this country back a hundred years would do enough people much good. The superrich have to pay there share as well. They are the ones who benefit the most from the way this society functions, they are the ones with the means to lobby and get what they want, and they have responsibilities as well. One of them would be to help create a healthy society, to help raise America's standing in the world, etc. A society that protects them and their interests has to be protected as well.

As far as I know, nobody ruled that safety nets are unconstitutional; until it is ruled otherwise, they have a place in the society that the founding fathers envisioned.

Back when the government was truly small, few people paid taxes, and the government wasn't involved in people's lives the way it is today; life was way less complicated, the economy was much smaller than today, and we still had the Great Depression! I just don't think that today it is realistic to imagine a small government and the economy doing well on its own. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the proponents of small government who actually want a government that works only for a small number of people, to be there only for them when they are in need, and to protect only their rights. Guess what, the American people want a government that works for all of them!

The prolonged crisis we are in which causes so many Americans to suffer in a way we haven't seen in a long time didn't happen because too much regulation and too much taxation; on the contrary, it happened because too little regulation, too much financial engineering, and greed run amok. Big banks have to be bailed out in order to preserve the financial back bone of the country. America's standing in the world is crumbling, its assets are for sale, and its people are suffering. We are on the brink of an energy crisis that threatens our very future, and the policies of the current administration have kept us in this mess. Some people got filthy rich, and profited to the hilt from the state of affairs that almost brings this country to its knees. Yes, there is no Robin Hood, but there sure is a bunch of thieves and profiteers out there, and a majority of them are Republican. All this happened under the Republican command that very few people care for anymore. It took almost eight years of this president to open people's eyes about Republican policies and the falsity of their rhetoric. You are probably still having your eyes shut and your head in the sand; kind of pathetic.

Changegirl, if you are so unhappy with the way things are going in this country how about a change of scenary. If you can't afford a bus ticket to Canada I will be glad to buy you one.

The reason conservatives like myself are against big government programs are many fold. First they take basic resources from the very people in need. Second they do more harm than good. The excessive cost of good healthcare is a direct result of government intervention. I believe in restraining government whenever possible to limit corruption.

More often than not too much power in Washington leads to restrictions on personal freedom and taking of personal finances.

Bee Swell

if you are so unhappy with the way things are going in this country how about a change of scenary(sic)

Bush will be out of office soon enough. If Obama is president will you "love it or leave it" or just bitch even worse than now?

(that's a rhetorical question)

Humorous that the idiot posting reponazi's continue to push if you don't like it leave attitude.

It never occurs to em that there is more people here than just themselves.

Alexaintright, what does Bush leaving office have to do with the republican rhetoric concerning less government? Maybe your just too fucking stupid to read what is written!

Bee Swell

Moneywhore, the love it or leave it comment is entirely appropriate for those who never stop fucking whining no matter what. You can't understand that because you are one of them.

Bee Swell

the love it or leave it comment is entirely appropriate for those who never stop fucking whining no matter what.

You're the moron that decided to come to a left wing site and do noting but complain. Feel free to leave. You won't be missed.

what does Bush leaving office have to do with the republican rhetoric concerning less government

He grew the govt worse than clinton, you moron.

Humorous that the idiot posting reponazi's continue to push if you don't like it leave attitude.


A few weeks ago, I was talking with my boss about a similar issue.

Anyway, my boss told me that if I didn't like the way things were going I was free to go somewhere else, and that I was crazy for espousing my liberal views surrounded by so many conservatives. I couldn't do anything but laugh. Me...liberal...ahahahaha.

Perhaps stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't the answer, but I bet if the republicans and the democrats were to actually sit down and try to work something out, we could have decent health care for all americans.

If not, at least a revamp of the system so that insurance companies aren't in business to make a buck, but instead to help the people who pay them money.

Back when the government was truly small, few people paid taxes, and the government wasn't involved in people's lives the way it is today; life was way less complicated, the economy was much smaller than today, and we still had the Great Depression!

Why did we have the great depression and why did it last as long as it did? Look it up.. Minus government intervention and it never been as severe or lasted as long.

***** What I don't get is why regular people who have no prayer in hell of ever achieving the kind of wealth that justifies the right wing rhetoric support those ideas!!!!!!!!!! *******

......Taliban suicide bomber behavior.......

......they blow themselves up, because their beliefs overwhelm their capacity to understand the facts....

.......because of this.........

......I have always maintained that Americans are just too stupid as a group (like the Taliban) to ever have an effective national health care policy.......

.......just watch.......

......crackpipe, sniper, johnson, and jonryker will be here in a minute to prove me right.......

You guys have to cut the crap out about "stealing from the rich to give to the poor". One can argue that for too long in this country just the opposite happened; they stole from the poor to give to the rich! This president has taken a good chunk of the country resources and waged a war that a majority of people don't want, the superrich got richer, and a majority of people are suffering. Why should anybody in their right mind believe a word you have to say?

By the way, if everybody who doesn't agree with you would live the country, this would be a very sad empty place indeed. Since a majority of people are discontent, and a minority of people is conservative like you guys, it would be easier if you would be the ones going someplace else.

Oh, wait, some of you are already building Richistan right here, a vast amount of space and resources that are inaccessible to the American people, a country within a country. Richistanis would very much like to be left alone, except for the fact that there should be rules to support what they are doing and people should keep sending their hard earned dollars for their use and pleasure. Of course, why would you be going somewhere else, when a majority of you are already there? Well, if you find enough fools to believe you bullshit, you may be able to go on, have your cake and eat it too. We'll soon find out.

Changegirl,

You are one VERBOSE poster.

I'm not saying you should keep it to sound bites here, but come on, at the rate of new posts here, it's hard to give your posts the time they may or may not deserve while simultaneously participating in the discussions with other posters.

Write a book, maybe I'll buy it....

I'd love to read one article--just ONE--from a lefty whose visions of a greater, grander America doesn't mean some kind of massive increase in the size of government.

I'd love to read one article--just ONE--from a lefty whose visions of a greater, grander America doesn't mean some kind of massive increase in the size of government.


Good luck.

That would be selflessness

Yes, that is how the right is often viewed.

Of course, all those young republicans lining up to serve in Iraq, all of those righties saying "no" to the trust funds "JUST GIVE IT TO THE FEED THE POOR" ringing out in the hallways of Bear Sterns and Merrill Lynch. It brings a tear to my eye.

Or you could be spouting BULLSHIT!

I'd love to read one article--just ONE--from a lefty whose visions of a greater, grander America doesn't mean some kind of massive increase in the size of government.

Well now, how is your republicans and decrease government size working out?

Blaming it on the left when reality the increase has been created by the right.

Good luck with you small reporight small government.

Oops, I do have a feeling the republicans will be reducing their size coming up.

I'd love to read one article--just ONE--from a lefty whose visions of a greater, grander America doesn't mean some kind of massive increase in the size of government.

Posted by rightisrigh

Yep and you fools honestly beleive that the retards your party puts in office will shrink government.

Chumps.

Well now, how is your republicans and decrease government size working out?

* * * *

Terrible. Which is one reason they deserve to get another shellacking in November. If I wanted to vote for people who relentlessly expanded the role and size of government in our lives, I could've voted Democrat.

Well now, how is your republicans and decrease government size working out?M

Horribly!



Good luck with you small reporight small government.


Take solace. As a big-government advocate it must be comforting to know that your candidate will recycle in a couple of years.

"The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay barely 4 percent of income taxes."

That is because they make so much less money it is hard to even make a comparison. Some of the bottom earners make less in a year than some of the top earners make in a day.

I could've voted Democrat

LOL!

all of your voting life the republicans have been increasing the size of the government.

In fact, all of your voting life republicans have had the office 3/4 of the time.

How would you even know what democrats do?

Yes, they do nothing as clearly seen the last two years.

"As a big-government advocate"

I have to laugh when Republicans claim the Ds are all for big-government, especially after supporting an administration which increased the size of government more than any Dem's wet dream.

What's next...Dems and their deficits?

As a big-government advocate it must be comforting to know that your candidate will recycle in a couple of years.

LOL for you too JJ.

As you well know, I detest big government.

Why do you think I don't like the republicans, they lost me in the reagan years, moved from their mission statement and have never turned back.

Big government is clearly republican mantra, but that would mean a 180 and we would have to call you liberals.

"they do nothing as clearly seen the last two years."

Give me 49 votes, a President with a veto pen, and let me set the record for filibusters/refusals of cloture in less than half the session, and you'll get nothing done as well.

"That is because they make so much less money it is hard to even make a comparison. Some of the bottom earners make less in a year than some of the top earners make in a day. "

Thats beside the point.
Take from the few, give to the many is that the way you want it? It didn't bode so well for the countries that tried it. It is however a great way to get the masses behind you as seen by our current crop of candidates. The promise of handouts is great enough to overcome the reason of many in this country add to that the emotional outcry and you can have you constituents turned subjects completely under your control quashing the vice of the few who are being destroyed.

MW,


What a crazy role reversal?

The Republicans have embraced big government and the Dems have derided AND supported all of these initiatives.


Given the current landscape, who in the hell should I support?

"The promise of handouts is great enough to overcome the reason of many in this country"

Witness the Bush tax codes.

And now comes the democrat party excuse makers..............we can't get anything done because we push bad bills and they get fili or vetoed.

Lazy do nothin democrats don't deserve the support they get, the problem is the republicans are just doing a worse job.

It's a battle of the worst, and the republicans are winning.

-Given the current landscape, who in the hell should I support?

Even Mao is saying he might really have voted for Clinton over McCain, something I hear often lately from tighties who are just now looking at really having to vote for him over what they see as a very liberal Obama.

"Witness the Bush tax codes."


That is to dumb for comment.

"we can't get anything done because we push bad bills and they get fili or vetoed."

Written by someone who obviously has no idea how governance works under Robert's Rules of Order.

"That is to dumb for comment."

The classic self-retorting retort.

Cut me some slack i'm dyslexic as fuck.

-i'm dyslexic as fuck

Did you sell your soul to Santa?

"Witness the Bush tax codes."

How many folks were boondoggled by the $300 check a few years back? And if you don't know the Bush tax codes include a lot of "welfare" (just to mega coporations) and welfare to big pharma (disallowing a volume discount for 40 million, despite the fact 40 can get one), you're not paying attention.

salamandagator, you just don't get it, do you? "Take from the few, give to the many is that the way you want it?" If it were only that simple! No, I want to help people see they need to stop the current state of affairs where we take from the many and give to the few, and create a decent society with basic safety nets for all citizens!

"The promise of handouts is great enough to overcome the reason of many in this country". You are very slow, but you almost got it, except that you need to replace the word "many" with the word "few".

"The promise of handouts is great enough to overcome the reason of few in this country". This is exactly what conservative Republicans are doing. They want to turn back the clock 100 years and have a few live in paradise, and the many suffer in silence and sustain them.

Republicans would so well to understand that what they want is absolutely preposterous, and frankly immoral. I absolutely fail to see how they reconcile their supposed faith with the fact they are campaigning for tremendous social injustice. In fact, what they are doing is advocating social Darwinism disguised under the mantle of the words of the fathers. Perhaps the fathers are turning in their graves! How they would decry the hypocrisy of these people who want to turn back the clock and push America further in a downward spiral on the path it is engaged today!

no but it is on lease.

"Cut me some slack i'm dyslexic as fuck."

Posted by salamandagator

That wasn't an example of dyslexia, sal.

Functional illiteracy? Maybe.

More likely a typo that Dan should've ignored.

"Written by someone who obviously has no idea how governance works under Robert's Rules of Order."

Posted by Danforth

Your point being?

-no but it is on lease.

smiley flag

"The promise of handouts is great enough to overcome the reason of few in this country". This is exactly what conservative Republicans are doing. They want to turn back the clock 100 years and have a few live in paradise, and the many suffer in silence and sustain them.
* * * *

Really. It is Republicans who've given us a government that will spend two trillion seven hundred billion dollars this year. That is $2,700,000,000,000.

In what parallel universe do you live, where that is turning the clock back 100 years? Or even 10? What's more, who gives more to charity, conservatives or liberals? Isn't it cons, by about 2 to 1? If the many are "suffering in silence", it's no thanks to rich liberals.

It's easy to speak in abstracts and ideals but when you look into what it is your asking for it all falls apart. Your talking utopia I'm talking reality. By taking away incentive you will be taking away from the quality of life for all not just the few. All men are created equal but that does not mean they all are entitled to the same life. Guess what life's not fair, by trying to make it so you fight the natural order of things, you ask people to negate their instincts you ask for uniformity, you ask for the destruction of the foundation of our culture. Yes, it sucks to not have enough, i am not wealthy, i struggle to get by but i am not that desperate as to be bought out by the empty promises of a uniform society.

"That wasn't an example of dyslexia, sal."


It is though, i see what i believe is there. It is a product of my attempts to circumvent my problem, it's just the way i taught myself to deal with it.

" It is Republicans who've given us a government that will spend two trillion seven hundred billion dollars this year. That is $2,700,000,000,000."

Well isn't it Republicans who got us involved in the Iraq war, created the Dept. of Homeland Security, ran up the deficit which eats up billions just to cover the interest, etc. The Democrats control the House since 2006 and have almost an exact tie for votes in the Senate without the power to override vetos or stop fillibusters....but you still dishonestly pretend the Dems are in control and that the Republicans are blameless for the economic crisis the nation faces.
BTW, I was sort of glad my SS funds weren't in the stock market yesterday.

"More likely a typo that Dan should've ignored."

Or maybe the dyslexic shouldn't be calling people "to" dumb.

Written by someone who obviously has no idea how governance works under Robert's Rules of Order.

"Your point being?"

Moneywar has never acknowledged once what 49 votes, a Republican president, and record-setting filibusters in less than half the time has to do with governance.

salamandagator, are you really that brainwashed? Nobody is talking about socialism, or utopia, or something like that. It doesn't work! If you are not doing that well, what the hell are you doing supporting Republicans? Why are you acting against your own best interest?

Nobody is talking about taking away incentives in the way you imply. If anything, there are too many incentives for the superrich! They own the country, and they are the ones taking advantage on a grand scale of the way things work. And guess what? I have absolutely nothing against that! I don't want uniformity! I want a chance at decent living for every human being in this country!

If you think about the destruction of our culture, why are you advocating turning back the clock and making this country look more like a Latin country? Why are you arguing against a prosperous country, with a decent safety net for its citizens? The country certainly can certainly afford it!

If a majority of Americans are prosperous, the economy goes well, people are content, and the American dream is alive and the envy of the world, isn't that a better picture of America than the one in the 1920's?

"there are too many incentives for the superrich"


Do you believe these incentives are granted by one party?

"If you are not doing that well, what the hell are you doing supporting Republicans?"

I am not a jealous person, i consider myself to be intellectually honest. This is an issue of fairness. It is not fair to take away from one disproportionately to feed the desires of another.


"Nobody is talking about taking away incentives in the way you imply. If anything, there are too many incentives for the superrich!"

Look at that statement, by "too many" you imply that you want to remove some of those which would be contrary to your first sentence. You cannot take without some repercussions. You may not be advocating socialism to that fine a point but you are moving closer and closer.
At what point is it too much? Already just owning a home seems to make you rich in some peoples eyes. there is such a hatred for those with more then you that it becomes easy to rationalize stealing. Just look at property taxes then tack on school, fire, police levies who pays for this? It's not the guy in the crappy appt, or at least not directly.
Those with less always want from those with more thats human nature. Asking the gov to step in and force that is wrong and goes against what capitalism is about. When the better off are no more then cash cows ans the humanity is removed from them it is easy to steal.

"At what point is it too much?"

It's the good old law of diminishing returns again.
When the overall economy including labor is doing well then that pretty much indicates teh right balance, we are far from that balance today in favor of the wealthy. Bush TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH have caused this imbalance and the economy cannot recover until it expires because we are just printing money and making inflation worse. I wonder if the wealthy are any better off themselves, they have lots more money but it is worth far less. What have they really gained??

"Bush TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH"


And yet they still pay a hell of a lot more then you. Thay also spend more and are more philanthropic, but i suppose you would rather have that state mandated. I cannot be part of this "gimmie, i want, but he has" mentality.

"Bush TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH have caused this imbalance and the economy cannot recover until it expires"


Since when are tax cuts a negative for the economy?
Our problems are a lot deeper than what bush could do, i get it you don't like the guy but thats no reason to stop reasoning and apply all blame to him. The recession is very complicated, we did not recover from clinton's era, bush pushed it off making it worse, now the lending fiasco compounded by aspects of the war and poor consumer confidence. Add those up plus a awful lot of other variables and thats where we are.

I don't mind paying all those taxes you are mentioning. I want to live in a country that has decent safety nets for all citizens and it is prosperous. This country doesn't have either right now, at least not for a majority of people.

What I really mind is your blindness to the truth. "Those with less always want from those with more thats human nature." It is easy to blame human nature to justify anything you want!

What you should look at, and what is decent and true is that those with less want a chance to a decent life which is increasingly taken away from them!

"Asking the gov to step in and force that is wrong and goes against what capitalism is about."

First of all, use the spell checker so I can understand better what you are saying. Second, if you want to talk about government stepping in and fixing what is wrong, did you by any chance miss the bailout of Bear Stearns? Did you miss the fact that this country is waging a useless war and is diverting resources badly needed here at home (just think about the crumbling infrastructure for example) to enrich some companies and some people?

In essence you are advocating greedy capitalism for the superrich, and the hell with everybody else. I hope you don't happen to drive on one of those bridges that are about to crumble ...

"When the better off are no more then cash cows ... " Again, you are not making any sense ... The cash cow in this country is the majority of Americans who are working hard to earn a living with a sword dangling above their heads the sword of financial ruin that can be easily precipitated by a major medical emergency or the loss of a job. They are laboring to keep this country prosperous, but if they fall too much behind the economy tanks and everybody suffers, including you.

I think you bought the great Republican myth with your eyes closed, and refuse to wake up from your delusion. If that works for you ... I don't think though that a majority of Americans are going to join you anymore ...

Actually, you are wrong again. Americans are very generous. A lot of people donate money and time and work for a lot of causes, even though sometimes it is hard for them because it does affect their bottom line. In contrast, while I am happy that we have so much philanthropy form the superrich, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really affect their bottom line; on the contrary, in many cases they are taking advantage of it to skip around paying taxes ...

First of all, use the spell checker so I can understand better what you are saying. Second, if you want to talk about government stepping in and fixing what is wrong, did you by any chance miss the bailout of Bear Stearns?
* * * *

LMAO. Yes, I must've missed the bailout of Bear Stearns. Is that the one where the Fed forced Bear out of business, and sold it off for $2 a share?

If that's what you consider a bailout, maybe you need a new dictionary. Ask any shareholder of Bear Stearns how he liked the so-called bailout. And you do realize, I hope, that the Federal Reserve isn't the government?

But, hey--at least your spellchecker works.

In contrast, while I am happy that we have so much philanthropy form the superrich, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really affect their bottom line; on the contrary, in many cases they are taking advantage of it to skip around paying taxes ...

Posted by ChangeGirl
* * * *

Sounds like you need a new accountant. If I give a million dollars to charity, and I'm in the top tax bracket, I'm allowed to deduct the million, thus saving me $390,000 in taxes. Spending a million to save 390K "doesn't really affect their bottom line"?

Huh? Seems to me they're out another $610,000 that you've not accounted for.

"The cash cow in this country is the majority of Americans "


Really? I was under the impression that the top earners pay the most into the system. Again you speak of the injustice of profit.


"I hope you don't happen to drive on one of those bridges that are about to crumble ... "

Once again, who do you think is paying the most for the repair? It's not you or me but those who are more fortunate.



"did you by any chance miss the bailout of Bear Stearns?"

no and i agree that was wrong, it was their bad policy that brought them to their knees they should have folded. The argument can be made that by bailing them out the public was helped but i still believe they screwed up and should deal with the consequences instead of relying in the gov to save them.

I don't mind paying all those taxes you are mentioning. I want to live in a country that has decent safety nets for all citizens and it is prosperous. This country doesn't have either right now, at least not for a majority of people.

Then start saving, or live in a state that will facilitate it for you.. The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to handle your retirement or provide a safety net. And even if it did, they couldn't ever do as good of a job as you can...

"I don't think though that a majority of Americans are going to join you anymore ..."


Of course i'm the ignorant one after all it's not like the change you want is the purchase price for the proletariat.


Note, i am not calling you a socialist, i'll let you words speak for them self.

Rightisright, yes, it was a bailout. Bear Stearns avoided declaring bankruptcy and investors didn't lose the money they had in their accounts. The share price went down to $2 which is a heck of a lot better than down to zero. Now the stock is over $9, and has a chance to recover in time! The management is sitting pretty, regardless if they are still there or they left. They are all still very well off. I am sure the shareholders would have liked more help at the time, but at least they have a chance to recover most of their investment if they wait for a long time. The only people that really feel the pain as usual are the small investors that probably can't wait that long. And by the way, the Fed is a quasi-public part private, part government banking system.

Salamandagator, when words fail you, what can you do but try to attack? You are actually not addressing the real issues; just call me names which don't fit anyway. I said repeatedly that I don't want socialism, I advocate decency. The two are very different. Of course it is in your best interest to confuse the issues, and maybe there is a pocket of Americans that still but this crappy excuse for ideology, but most people are starting to think for themselves. Why don't you try that for a change?

Jsprague, you said that "The Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to handle your retirement or provide a safety net", and I say that the constitution didn't say that those safety nets are unconstitutional either. I dare you to take it to the Supreme Court. You would lose votes, including Republican votes faster than you can say confused jsprague.

And even if it did, they couldn't ever do as good of a job as you can...

Posted by jsprague

"can" does not mean "will"

That's a big risk that the government/economy can't afford to take.

What would you suggest when all those people actually lose the money they've invested?

You clearly missed the conversation yesterday about privatization of social security.

SS is an insurance policy, not a retirement account.

I have to go out for a couple of hours to do some errands. Hopefully you guys are going to be here, and we can continue this discussion. Maybe you can come up with something really good in the meantime.

Rightisright, yes, it was a bailout. Bear Stearns avoided declaring bankruptcy and investors didn't lose the money they had in their accounts. The share price went down to $2 which is a heck of a lot better than down to zero. Now the stock is over $9, and has a chance to recover in time! The management is sitting pretty, regardless if they are still there or they left. They are all still very well off. I am sure the shareholders would have liked more help at the time, but at least they have a chance to recover most of their investment if they wait for a long time.
* * * * *

LMAO. Sure. All they have to do is wait for the new stock in JPM to go up 95 times (9400% return)--and they can be back at breakeven to where they were 10 months ago.

What the Fed did was engineer a bailout of Bear Stearns' counterparties--their customers, their institutional clients, and those who had Bear on the other side of interest rate swaps or options contracts. And you should be glad they did--had BSC gone down, there would have been a Wall Street crash, followed by a crash of the entire banking system. And the people who got punished--Bear shareholders--were exactly who should have lost everything. That's what happens, see, when a company goes into receivership.

But if you want to keep calling it a bailout, it just proves you don't really know what happened there. Proceed, then.

"Salamandagator, when words fail you, what can you do but try to attack? You are actually not addressing the real issues; just call me names which don't fit anyway. I said repeatedly that I don't want socialism,"


It's not an insult. I was was just pointing out the difference between you statements. You don't want the word socialism, you just want all that it entails. I thought i was being civil after all the insults you threw at me.

Rightisright, we finally agree on something ... "What the Fed did was engineer a bailout of Bear Stearns' counterparties ... " So it was a bailout that helped save the financial system from a crash. Everybody knows that.



Salamandagator, I told you to think for yourself and argue for something that is in your best interest; if you take that as an insult, more is the pity.

Your point of view is very interesting. However, if you call me a socialist because I say that we need safety nets, then one can conclude that this is already a socialist society because we have social security; doesn't this strike you as preposterous?

"I told you to think for yourself and argue for something that is in your best interest"

You said i had my eyes closed, it's hard not to see that as an insult but never mind. I never called you a socialist i said it was up to the words you wrote and i think they betray your true self. From what you have written today it would seem you advocate the equalization of the classes, yes i know that is a oversimplification but it would be the end result.


" then one can conclude that this is already a socialist society because we have social security;"


And how well has that gone for us? You want the same people in charge of that to have more power? You cannot take this out of perspective by forgetting the proven outcome of such programs. You say we are behind everyone else and our system is failing, well i would believe that by the looks of things theirs are failing too.

I do not believe it is the responsibility of the us gov to dictate the quality of life to us. This idea that the role of the government include all aspects of our life is foreign to me, as it should be. They are already taking enough do you really want to give them more? I would venture to believe that most people would answer no unless it's not them giving more. therein lies the problem, this apathy to the better off is not a sign of progress but is in fact the antithesis of such. Yes, that means some will have a lesser quality of life, but that just the way it is you cannot create a equality that is not there to begin with.

"argue for something that is in your best interest"


Begging, borrowing and stealing may also be in my best interest should i argue the merits of those?

Rightisright, we finally agree on something ... "What the Fed did was engineer a bailout of Bear Stearns' counterparties ... " So it was a bailout that helped save the financial system from a crash. Everybody knows that.
* * * *

Yes, but that's not what you said. You said it was a bailout of Bear Stearns, and that it was possible for the shareholders to get their money back, which they can't. The Fed shut down Bear Stearns, moved their liabilities onto their own balance sheet, and had JPM buy the company out for less than the value of Bear's building, let alone their entire business. That's not a bailout of Bear Stearns, any more than allowing a chemical plant to burn to the ground as opposed to sending in firemen to risk their lives can be called saving the factory.

Last week, Morgan announced that they would lay off more than half of Bear's work force, and also announced they expected BSC to earn at least $800 million next year. Considering they only paid $1 billion for it, means BSC traded out at one year's future earnings.

"Since when are tax cuts a negative for the economy?"

Since we went from spending one dollar out of every nine to service the debt, to one dollar out of every six.

Moneywar has never acknowledged once what 49 votes, a Republican president, and record-setting filibusters in less than half the time has to do with governance.

LOL!!!

Sorry Danforth, but the fact you can't grasp the concept of putting good bills through when not having the super majority is not my problem.

Good bills get passed, even by evil opposition when they are .....wait..................GOO
D BILLS.

Coming up ....... Democratic congress bill law suit against OPEC.........LOL!!!!!!

Lazy good for nothing do nothing democratic party leaders and that is fact.

"Good bills get passed, even by evil opposition when they are .....wait..................GOO
D BILLS."

Again, give me 49 votes and a President from my party, and I can say fuck you every time I want; you won't even be able to close a debate.

You seem to forget that near Stearns was on the way out. On March 13, Bear Stearns informed the Federal Reserve of their liquidity problem and the need to file for bankruptcy the next day, unless funding was found. That was a crisis! Bear was about to burn down threatening to bring on a meltdown in the financial system. This was clearly a bailout deal that was far better for Bear Stearns and everybody else than bankruptcy. If you want to call it by another name, suit yourself, but the truth is that Bear was doomed, and they salvaged what was possible. You also forgot to mention that the revised offer from JPM implied a share price of almost $10!

Bear Stearns didn't burn to the ground!!! 9,000 workers will stay for now; how much better is that than laying 14,000 people off? JPM guarantees a majority of Bear's obligation and expects Bear to be able to fulfill all its obligations. In my mind, that is a bailout, and of course it extends far beyond just Bear. Not only that, it was a taxpayer-backed bailout!

You misunderstood what I said. The investors that can afford to wait for a long, long time will recoup some of their losses; the investors who can't wait will lose a lot.

Rightisright, it seems to me that the bunch of you guys are seeing everything through a bunch of very dark glasses, and refuse to look at what works.

Salamandagator, you are nothing but amusing. "Begging, borrowing and stealing may also be in my best interest should i argue the merits of those?" I understand that often people need to borrow, but could you please enlighten me why the other two would be in your best interest? Are begging and stealing some kind of secret Republican way to get what you want? Or, do you suddenly have an urge to see yourself in trouble?

Moneywar suffers from an access of self-righteousness. Could you please explain why taking on OPEC which would have to be some kind of bi-partisan endeavor in order to really happen - prompts you to say "Lazy good for nothing do nothing democratic party leaders". I am having a little bit of trouble following that argument.

"but could you please enlighten me why the other two would be in your best interest?"



Good for me bad for someone else. I get the money they loose it. pretend it has no negative consequences for now, you seem good at that part.

Thanks, you are really creative in the way you take a problem and make it into something else entirely.

We are arguing the difference between a capitalist society that has been hijacked by a few and only works for a few, and only allows freedom for a few, and is only prosperous for a few, and a capitalist society that works for a majority of people, that allows a majority of people to be free, and is prosperous for a majority of people. You argue for the former with a passion, when the latter would benefit you most.

Tell you what, when you come of the age when you could get the social security checks and can use Medicare, just tell them you don't want anything to do with any of that, because you want to be free in the way you define freedom.

If you have a moment, why don't you describe to me the ideal capitalist society from your point of view? Maybe I can understand it better.

"Tell you what, when you come of the age when you could get the social security checks and can use Medicare"


When it's time for me they won't be around. They are a failed experiment, just like additional social programs would become.



"If you have a moment, why don't you describe to me the ideal capitalist society from your point of view? Maybe I can understand it better."

There is no such thing. Capitalism is a dog eat dog world, based in reality, based on human nature. It does not include the childish ideas that could never come to pass as many of the social based systems. I have no doubt it is based off greed, that is the way of man, asking to change that is a fools game. When all men are equal in worth, equal in output, equal in intellect then another system is possible. Until then this is what we have. By injecting aspects of a rival philosophy you destroy the possibility of either working.

That being said, greed is a wonderful motivator. It is the only real positive reinforcement that exists for many today. It is what drives people to work harder, create and innovate. As you take away this motivation you are left with the only possibility of negative reinforcement, is that what we want? When faced with the possibility of reward, of prosperity most will try for it as opposed to a socialist society where you can only go down. Which would you prefer? I understand you are not preaching for a Marxist society but as you add more and more elements the changeover becomes imminent. I know i am taking this to an extreme but you have to look at what has already happened, how far a little can go, how ideals can be so easily skewed. This is a dangerous concept.

It is capitalism that has brought you to your way of life. Your luxuries, your vanities the come from money. When you and everyone else are willing to give that up in a false hope for a slight raise in your perceived quality of life then other possibilities arise.

When people are willing to admit there is a difference in their profitability then they will come to understand the lack of reward. There are people that will abuse any system there is. You can see this in the welfare program, or unemployment or even disability. What would be proposed is a addition to a failing concept characterized by the inept administration of such programs and a lack of respect for those who provide it.

There is no free lunch. You propose taking from those you believe have a societal debt. Well if they are as evil as some imagine where do you think that will come from? Will they take the hit? No this would be folly, nothing more.

Capitalism is not an ideal, it is reality. Love it or hate it there is no denying it hold on people. That is why there is so much support for thees type of offerings. The greed and jealousy counters the rational and logic the people taken in are susceptible to any sort of influence that is offered id it provides the possibility of the proliferation their jealousy.

Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what your point of view is. I can see where you are coming from, but I can't embrace it in that for several reasons. I will give you an answer in two parts, because it is too long to fit here.

I don't see things in black and white, and I don't see why we can't have capitalism with elements of social justice. Why not take the best of everything and create something good?

This country was so great because Americans in general are more open-minded, more ingenious, intrepid and resourceful than many other people in the world. If we all start closing our minds and if we all succumb to hatred and bigotry, we loose the very spirit that made this country so great. It is interesting to me that many people don't realize that the unfettered capitalism from a hundred years ago resembles socialism in some respects much more than a healthy capitalist society with safety nets that you argue so much against.

One hundred years ago people used to live much shorter lives. What should we do with older people today? Use them as much as we can, overwork them, underpay them when they are young and then abandon them without the hope of a decent old age? Let them beg on the streets? Let their families, which can barely make ends meet themselves buckle under the burden of taking care of them? Wait for somebody to throw them a bone? Make old people ghettos and put them in there? What do you propose to do if old people get sick, shoot them? Send them off somewhere to die? They would surely die fast because they couldn't afford the healthcare. All this would be so shameful and preposterous for such a rich country that it doesn't bare thinking. We can afford a horrendous war at a cost of trillions of dollars and so many lives which didn't help the average American or Iraqi, but it surely lined up some pockets, and we can't afford to take care and respect our elders?

I also don't think that you should throw the baby with the bath water. Just because a few manage to game the system, you don't destroy it; you just try to make the system more efficient and punish the relatively few bad apples.

Social Security can be fixed; if nothing else you can raise the retirement age and you can fix it. It is not a handout because it is based on transfer payments; if anything, I think that is a very ingenious idea. Medicare has huge problems, but so does the entire health care system; we need real reform. Healthcare in US is much costlier than any system in all developed countries, and yet it is much less efficient, and not everybody has access to it.

If you have a capitalist society without safety nets, you eventually end up with a decaying population, a crumbling economy, great social unrest, and you quickly lose the ability to compete in the global economy. It is an experiment that would quickly fail, and I am not even willing to try it. If you have a capitalist society with appropriate safety nets, you have a healthier population, less stressed workforce that is more creative, more productive, and more competitive with the rest of the world. Which scenario do you like better?

I agree with you that greed can be a powerful motivator and it can be beautiful and good, but like anything else it can get very ugly as well. Greed is a human trait that exists everywhere, including in socialist societies. However, it would be a very long stretch to say that greed is the only motivator and a really sad boring ugly world if it were true; thank God it isn't. You've got to be more open minded than that! Open you eyes and see the good in people and all the beauty in the world. "Capitalism is a dog eat dog world" ... that seems like such an extreme bleak view of the world ... there wouldn't be many people left around us if that would be the case. Too many people take that view and they make their lives and everybody else's lives around them miserable ... what a waste, and what a sad way to live. You've got to have a little more faith in people.

I know it sounds pessimistic but you have to use the lowest common denominator when it come to things like this. Sure there are plenty of people that are above but there are just as many people below waiting to take advantage. Your idea of safety nets is not bad just flawed, or maybe it is an unwillingness to believe that people will sink that low. My thought are that if set these thing in place for emergencies they will be abused, that is what has happened and that is what will happen again.
Furthermore social justice is not social equality. This goes back to greed as the great motivator. You are right that it is not the only one but i would have to say it is the most prevalent. By equalizing society part of this is taken away and the people become more reliant on the government and others and that is not good for an economy. There does have to be some balance though, capitalism breeds immorality and socialism destroys country's. So, if you take it too far you will end up in a bad way. We are a country of extremes, look at the political field, the people will not be content with a little help here and a bit there. All in all it reminds me of if you give a mouse a cookie. It is kinda sad but thats just life.

This may have been a waste of time but i have enjoyed our conversation. It a nice break from the stupid insults and unoriginal ideas cut and pasted until everyones IQ drops a couple of points. Thank you

Thank you very much for the discussion as well because I enjoyed it.

I still think that a capitalist society with safety nets is the only healthy way to go. I just don't see what else we can do with the large part of the society that is getting older. It is also in my best interest to know that there will be something there for me if I am going to need it. I believe that there are enough smart heads in the country to come up with a political and economically feasible solution to this mess.

This morning on TV there was a discussion about saving in America. It is true that Americans are not saving. However, I look at what is happening with the cost of life, with retirement money and with inflation, and I wonder what these people are thinking. If people can even afford to save, they can only look forward to losing their savings anyway.

I would like you to know that I support Sen. Clinton because I believe that she is the only one that can keep this country on a moderate path, which I think is the only way to navigate the stormy situation we are in.

I am actually afraid that a Sen. Obama win would make the kind of excesses you are afraid of possible, and he could help bankrupt the country.

I am also afraid that Sen. McCain would continue this war tat we cannot afford, and probably drag us into more wars that can potentially help bankrupt the country and help us sink even lower in our standing in the world.

I guess that we can muddle through anything that any one of them can bring on; after all, nothing matches the resilience of our people and the ability to bounce back from anything!

I wonder though, why not go the sensible way and fight to turn this old creaky US boat around now? Why wait until the situation becomes much worse?

I think that Sen. Clinton is smart enough and moderate enough in her views to bring everybody together and guide us on a better path, and help restore our leadership in the world.

I agree with your image of obama, his idealism borders on the childish. Clinton on the other hand has had the opportunity to dilute her own with realism. I cannot bring myself to vote for her based on other factors and i am almost ashamed to say i think my best option in mccain. I am one of those who think this is a poor selection and it back to the lesser of the evils, i'm tired of that. I would happily vote for any candidate that has a decent amount of common sense unfortunately we have three shill running. Any way it goes i think we are in for four years of crap and we can only hope that not too much damage is done.

I am afraid to ask what the other factors are. She has been so reviled and hated and her words have been twisted around so much, and she was called so many names; the Obama supporters and the Republicans have done a through job of all of that.

Well, I happen to think that Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain have a lot to answer for as well.

Sen. Obama is clearly too liberal for anybody's taste, he would probably flop like his pal Patrick Duval, succumb to special interests, his judgment is in question, and he is woefully inexperienced. The truth is, I don't know how they have the guts to place the inexperienced Mr. Johnny-come-lately-Obama in the most important post in the land, as this would be some sort of internship or something. I just don't get it. He is learning about everything including foreign policy under our very eyes, for God's sake! His wife is not, nor will she ever be first lady material, and clearly she doesn't love white America; she actually resents having to integrate. Who knows, if they stay in the public eyes for long enough, maybe they will get enough experience and polish to be a good choice; in my opinion they are not there yet.

Sen. McCain is a very scary choice as well. In my opinion he should just enjoy a good retirement. He wants to continue the war indefinitely, perhaps start another one, but he would not sign any bill that would help veterans! That is enough right there to disgust me. Even though he lives the good life, he has no compunction about taking in plenty of disability money; however, if time will come for him to lead a discussion about disability in general, I don't see him caring about other people. He would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which is totally inappropriate today. He is loud and clear about not supporting pork bills, but he has no problem with supporting shady land deals, and his wife is mighty secretive about her taxes. He has an explosive temper and he is stubborn old man thinking he knows everything, and that is not a good trait to have in the current environment.

I don't think Sen. McCain can really relate to the regular folks; unfortunately, these are very difficult times about to get much worse, and we truly need somebody who does that at the helm. Whatever he did in the past to earn the maverick name is gone because he needs to get close to the conservative base in order to win this election.

In a nutshell, Sen. Obama is too tilted to the left, and Sen. McCain is fast becoming too tilted to the right, and in my opinion none of them will do.

This was a very clever campaign tilted towards McCain, and he might just get it, which makes me a bit scared. The media is in the Republican pocket for the most part; they gave Sen. McCain a free hero pass and they built Sen. Obama to rock star status. The media tried to knock down Sen. Clinton; they insulted her in each and every way, and they gleefully played the Democratic supporters against each other. They released the stuff about Obama when it was too late to make a big enough dent in his advantage, and they are still playing it; the secret hope is probably to push Democrats to take the fight to the convention, which could be enough to help the Republicans stay in place in November.

I don't know if that is going to work though; I am afraid it will, and I am afraid it won't; the choice is bad either way. Nothing less than a Sen. Clinton win would be enough to reassure me.