USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[maturin 12]

Watch this.

LukQ7lISWFI

Like hell I'm watching any video that adds demon eyes to bureaucrats in order to pad out its arguments.

[nettrucker 142]

It's not about the vid it's about the message in my opinion.

[Fox '09 14]

It's not about the vid it's about the message in my opinion.

I somewhat agree with him, I don't like the way people like ron paul and peter schiff phrase things. Big goverment, bureaucrats, etc. No liberal is in favor of wasteful spending, yet they try to portray it as that way. Neither are they in favor of wasteful federal workers.

They portray their view as goverment can't do anything right, and that goverment thinks they know whats best for you.

Government can do some things right, and quite frankly progressive democrats represent their constituents, not ron paul's. It's very polarizing because quite frankly the country is mostly progressive on most issues. I don't think ron paul will win a general election solely because of this. I think it's sad, I want him to win the presidency but his rhetoric is not unifying apart from his foreign policy and drug policy.

Though my main problem as far as working with people like peter schiff is that they use a very wide definition of regulation when debating progressives. Progressives think that goverment should be the cop that prevents financial meltdowns, and perhaps even helping low income families get loans. But they aren't in favor of making this convoluted, complex system that ends up destroying the economy.

Libertarians on the other hand portray regulations while debating progressives as helping low income families get loans. Yes, I get it's a regulation, but if you're going to make the case against a progressive argument, understand that the problems arising from that aren't necessarily part of their philosophy, but rather part of a corrupt system.

Don't get me wrong. I want Ron Paul to win the presidency. I just think he won't because he doesn't use unifying language. I agree with most of what he says, even if I disagree on what he wants to do to fix it.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Fox '09

[st_dux 26]

Libertarians on the other hand portray regulations while debating progressives as helping low income families get loans. Yes' date=' I get it's a regulation, but if you're going to make the case against a progressive argument, understand that the problems arising from that aren't necessarily part of their philosophy, but rather part of a corrupt system.[/quote']

The system will inevitably be corrupt, though. That's just how people are. Attempting to fix this by giving the government more power to regulate things is just opening up the door for more corruption. The only tenable solution to the problem is to realize that we can't legislate human nature away and instead work on building a system where the corruption and ignorance of the people in charge is mitigated sufficiently by the restraints to their power.

[Fox '09 14]

The system will inevitably be corrupt, though. That's just how people are. Attempting to fix this by giving the government more power to regulate things is just opening up the door for more corruption. The only tenable solution to the problem is to realize that we can't legislate human nature away and instead work on building a system where the corruption and ignorance of the people in charge is mitigated sufficiently by the restraints to their power.

I understand that's what libertarians believe, but if you didn't know that it sounds like a cop out. Progressives think that we can manage corruption by accountability and by ending the influence of money in politics.

There will always be corruption, and it could be argued that libertarians will never have their way by the very nature of the political system. If there is no regulations on campaign finance and lobbying, then there will never be a libertarian idea of goverment implemented.

You can't legislate human nature away.. just like you can't end disease. You can do your best to end it, and libertarians can work with the other side on how to solve the issue, but saying that there shouldn't be a role in goverment for that seems absurd. Two sides need to argue to find a middle ground. If you want to take more libertarian position, I accept that. But it seems like madness to believe in the absolute of any ideology. I don't want an entirely socialist economy, nor do I want an entirely capitalist economy. It's not black and white. Ending the power to regulate is impossible, nobody will go along with that. Find a libertarian leaning middle ground, but not this absolute position.

I don't think you will never defeat the power structure if you insist that power doesn't need restraints like glass-steagall, or separating ratings agencies from the companies they regulate.

you need to define regulation for me, maybe that would help the discussion.

[nettrucker 142]

Yeah how goes that saying - every man got his price. In any case the american people have no saying in what is transformed into laws and what not. IMHO the American president has the powers of a Dictator. America has been transformed into a police state and your government is not your friend. They are running their own agenda withoutb asking the people what's right or wrong.

The US and Nato are destabilizing the Arab world with the risk that we could face a new world war. How long you guys think the Russians and the Chinese will be watching as US hedgemony spreads throughout the Middle East.

The US administration is full of warmongers I'm sorry to say so. :(

America is the only nation since the last century which is constantly involved in wars and throughout Nato, Europeans are forced to get involved too. Because our politicians here in Europe are just to plain stupid to acknowledge that.

America has gained their hedgemony by bringing misery hunger death and destruction to inoumerous nations. Read John Perkins book "Confessions of an economic hit man".

I once admired the USA but this is long time gone. The US are interfering in to many countries afairs for too long now. America is policing the whole world

You are either with us or against us.

My apologies for this little rant of mine but US foreign politics has become unsound and threatens world peace.

[Fox '09 14]

Eisenhower warned us.

I think the worst development is what happened after 9/11. You're either with us, or against the troops and the country. In 2006, I think it was 60 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was personally involved with 9/11. The bush administration lied about 600+ times between 2002 and 2003 about iraq and its involvement with 9/11 and WMDs.

And worst of all, an incumbent that probably would of agreed that the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary. (not to say what bush did is anything near to what happened in WWII) This looking forward nonsense is dangerous. As if the american people weren't apathetic enough.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Fox '09

[NoRailgunner 0]

Any news about voter fraud in US?

http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries

[vilas 477]

Any news about voter fraud in US?

http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries

in PL we had few such cases and all were discontinued and closed with sentence "guilty not found, case discontinued because it doesn't influence voting result"

we had last elections 2-3 situations where for example there were found ca. 100 voting cards more than voting cards were given (extra printed)

or when chief of local police was caught with bag full of voting cards

anyone is not sentenced

my gramma also signed voting for one candidate after her death ... as usual ;) get used to it ;) one day you will live we live in Europe

[Tonci87 163]

Croatia had to vote if they want into the EU. Well I know that the majority of croatians doens´t want that (there have been big demonstartions and unrest) and still theyy managed to get 65% to vote with yes....well the number of people who voted was surprisingly low. I guess that Votes from areas with a high anti EU tendency simply disapeared. The people get nothing from joining the EU, The politicians get bigger pay and an entry in the history books.

[st_dux 26]

Progressives think that we can manage corruption by accountability and by ending the influence of money in politics.

Progressives live in a fantasy land where any problem can be solved through the sheer power of good will; they are like children whose mother told them they could do whatever they wanted in life as long as they tried their hardest that never grew up. Taking away money's influence in politics is about as possible as taking away the sun's influence on the earth: It cannot be done. What can be done is limiting the power of government so that influence won't be so detrimental. Progressives want to do the opposite of this.

There will always be corruption' date=' and it could be argued that libertarians will never have their way by the very nature of the political system. If there is no regulations on campaign finance and lobbying, then there will never be a libertarian idea of goverment implemented.[/quote']

I am inclined to agree with your first sentence here but not for the reasons provided in the subsequent one. There doesn't need to be any limits on campaign finance or lobbying in a libertarian system; government simply needs to have its scope and power limited enough through law that the incentives to spend enormous amounts of money to get on the good side of politicians go away. If government couldn't grant special favors to particular people and corporations, lobbying wouldn't be the dirty word that it is today. The only reason that we're even talking about the need to regulate such spending is the fact that the government has the power to cause so much damage in the course of appealing to its corporate benefactors.

You can't legislate human nature away.. just like you can't end disease. You can do your best to end it' date=' and libertarians can work with the other side on how to solve the issue, but saying that there shouldn't be a role in goverment for that seems absurd. Two sides need to argue to find a middle ground. If you want to take more libertarian position, I accept that. But it seems like madness to believe in the absolute of any ideology. I don't want an entirely socialist economy, nor do I want an entirely capitalist economy. It's not black and white. Ending the power to regulate is impossible, nobody will go along with that. Find a libertarian leaning middle ground, but not this absolute position.[/quote']

Your disease analogy doesn't work because disease is something that can be effectively combated through research and medical work. Human nature cannot be changed, period, and any attempt to force a change through the coercive power of the government results in corruption, not progress. Fighting disease is difficult; fighting human nature is fundamentally impossible.

The best kind of government is one that works with human nature, not against it. Greed needs to be accepted as a fact of life, not fought as an enemy to be destroyed. If we try to fight it, we just redirect it and enhance its negative effects.

As for the middle ground argument, the idea that we must take a "middle stance" regardless of what that means is something that's truly dangerously ideological.

[froggyluv 2136]

Progressives live in a fantasy land where any problem can be solved through the sheer power of good will; they are like children whose mother told them they could do whatever they wanted in life as long as they tried their hardest that never grew up. Taking away money's influence in politics is about as possible as taking away the sun's influence on the earth: It cannot be done. What can be done is limiting the power of government so that influence won't be so detrimental. Progressives want to do the opposite of this.

And one could easily argue that Libertarians are living in a La-La land in which a totally derugulated free market solves all and thru society's power of " we won't support corrupt businesses" -all will be well. Truth is that if 90% of the wealth is arguably already in the hands of a few entrenched corrupt individuals - your dollar vote don't mean jack.

The best kind of government is one that works with human nature, not against it. Greed needs to be accepted as a fact of life, not fought as an enemy to be destroyed. If we try to fight it, we just redirect it and enhance its negative effects.

Yeah, so what? So is lust, quest for dominance over all and killing your father to have your mother. All animal drives are natural -doesn't mean they are to be just accepted as fate. If that were true, well I'd just strongarm that guy with the Hummer and take his wife to add to my collection -whats there to stop me? Oh yeah -laws or in business terms -regulations. Why have any laws that prevent us from our natural base desires - shouldn't we just accept our primary drives as a "fact of life" as there is no such thing as "common good"?

Truth is if we were a tribal society that all drank and cared for the one river that nourished us - and a capitalistic tribesman decided to poison the water so he could make his potions for profit -he'd be murdered. Theres totally free unregulated market and people. Better to have laws in place beforehand.

Edited January 23, 2012 by froggyluv

[st_dux 26]

And one could easily argue that Libertarians are living in a La-La land in which a totally derugulated free market solves all and thru society's power of " we won't support corrupt businesses" -all will be well. Truth is that if 90% of the wealth is arguably already in the hands of a few entrenched corrupt individuals - your dollar vote don't mean jack.

No libertarian is going to argue that the free market will lead to nirvana. Society will always have problems, and it will never be perfect. Keeping the market free will make our imperfect world less violent, though.

Yeah, so what? So is lust, quest for dominance over all and killing your father to have your mother. All animal drives are natural -doesn't mean they are to be just accepted as fate. If that were true, well I'd just strongarm that guy with the Hummer and take his wife to add to my collection -whats there to stop me? Oh yeah -laws or in business terms -regulations. Why have any laws that prevent us from our natural base desires - shouldn't we just accept our primary drives as a "fact of life" as there is no such thing as "common good"?

Humans are naturally social animals that figured out a long time ago that it behooved them to work together for mutual benefit. Society is simply the latest and greatest form of this social instinct, and at its core is a single rule, the non-aggression principle. Following this principle, we don't kill our fellow man or take his property, and we expect him to do the same. We don't follow this principle because we necessarily care about our fellow man; we follow this principle because we care about ourselves, and we know that we can achieve more and live better lives through cooperation. Trying to accumulate personal wealth (i.e., greed), in and of itself, is not incompatible with the non-aggression principle. Indeed, greedy people can and often do cooperate peacefully with one another. Any law or regulation that targets greed, on the other hand, necessarily involves taking property from peaceful people through the implied threat of violence. Such regulations are far more detrimental to a free society than greed itself.

[froggyluv 2136]

Trying to accumulate personal wealth (i.e., greed), in and of itself, is not incompatible with the non-aggression principle. Indeed, greedy people can and often do cooperate peacefully with one another. Any law or regulation that targets greed, on the other hand, necessarily involves taking property from peaceful people through the implied threat of violence. Such regulations are far more detrimental to a free society than greed itself.

Thats right, trying to accumulate wealth in and of itself doesn't automatically dictate that the person/corporation is greedy. That also doesn't exonerate those that will pollute the common gounds of our society to maximize their profits either.

I like my air and water as pollutant free as possible -why should a corporation or a black cloud producing commercial truck have the right to affront my liberty for the sake of their own profits? The fact is that they will do it if not enforced to under regulation and law. That to me merits the title "greed" and warrants punishment. Their desire for profits infringes on my right to clean air/water. If polluting industries want to fill the air with cancer producing black smoke -let them place a giant air tight bubble around it and they can do whatever the hell they like.

Thats what I dont get about the Libertarian party - they speak constantly of free market and deregulation in absolutes when in my opinion it is something that may need recalibration with a scalpel -not an axe. Saying your going to "throw away" the EPA etc... is reckless and what are they offering in it's place?

...necessarily involves taking property from peaceful people through the implied threat of violence

I find this oft-repeated phrase amusing :D This is only true in extreme cases in which the accused creates escalation to absurd levels. Heck, If I drop trash in public and fight the law to death about it -it'd happen here as well.

Edited January 23, 2012 by froggyluv

[st_dux 26]

Thats right, trying to accumulate wealth in and of itself doesn't automatically dictate that the person/corporation is greedy.

Well, yes, actually it does. Trying to accumulate wealth for yourself beyond what is essential for your survival is technically greedy. In general, people try to use the word only when describing someone who is exceptionally greedy, but the point at which "just trying to live a quality life" becomes "unjustifiably greedy" is completely arbitrary and subjective.

I like my air and water as pollutant free as possible -why should a corporation or a black cloud producing commercial truck have the right to affront my liberty for the sake of their own profits? The fact is that they will do it if not enforced to under regulation and law. That to me merits the title "greed" and warrants punishment. Their desire for profits infringes on my right to clean air/water. If polluting industries want to fill the air with cancer producing black smoke -let them place a giant air tight bubble around it and they can do whatever the hell they like.

Air is a common resource not owned by anyone in particular, so I agree that it should be regulated by the government. Water pollution problems are usually best addressed through tort law as it is almost always the case that the water being polluted is owned by someone; that person (or group of persons) has the right to sue the polluting entity. In both cases, the issue is a matter of owners' rights, not curbing greed.

Thats what I dont get about the Libertarian party - they speak constantly of free market and deregulation in absolutes when in my opinion it is something that may need recalibration with a scalpel -not an axe. Saying your going to "throw away" the EPA etc... is reckless and what are they offering in it's place?

First off, not all libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party. Second, libertarians want to get rid of the EPA because it is a bloated and inefficient government agency that causes more harm than good (which is the case with most government agencies), but that doesn't mean that there should be no environmental regulations whatsoever. As I said above, I believe that any resource that is truly common, such as air, should be regulated by the government.

I find this oft-repeated phrase amusing :D This is only true in extreme cases in which the accused creates escalation to absurd levels. Heck, If I drop trash in public and fight the law to death about it -it'd happen here as well.

You're missing the point. The violence is of course rarely ever actualized, but that's only because the "greedy" person or corporation whose property is being stolen for the "common good" has acquiesced to the state's demands. Fundamentally, the state is still acting in a coercive manner here, and this flies in the face of the state's justification for existing in the first place.

[froggyluv 2136]

Well, yes, actually it does. Trying to accumulate wealth for yourself beyond what is essential for your survival is technically greedy. In general, people try to use the word only when describing someone who is exceptionally greedy, but the point at which "just trying to live a quality life" becomes "unjustifiably greedy" is completely arbitrary and subjective

As defined by Websters:

"a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed"

Now of course who decides what is "excessive" will always be subjective. What Im wondering is exactly how is society punishing the so called "greedy"?

Water pollution problems are usually best addressed through tort law as it is almost always the case that the water being polluted is owned by someone; that person (or group of persons) has the right to sue the polluting entity. In both cases, the issue is a matter of owners' rights, not curbing greed.

Now that would depend on the degree and threat level of what they're dumping wouldn't it? Surely your not suggesting that all criminality be taken out of toxic dumping? Civil Court isn't a strong enough deterrent.

First off, not all libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party. Second, libertarians want to get rid of the EPA because it is a bloated and inefficient government agency that causes more harm than good (which is the case with most government agencies), but that doesn't mean that there should be no environmental regulations whatsoever. As I said above, I believe that any resource that is truly common, such as air, should be regulated by the government

Well Im glad we agree that these regulations are needed and would suggest that Libertarian leaders need to make a clear message that although they'd 'like to dismantle the EPA, heres how they would handle polluters'.... I never hear this. Generally it sounds more like a "f*ck, yeah, tear them down!"

You're missing the point. The violence is of course rarely ever actualized, but that's only because the "greedy" person or corporation whose property is being stolen for the "common good" has acquiesced to the state's demands. Fundamentally, the state is still acting in a coercive manner here, and this flies in the face of the state's justification for existing in the first place

I understand the point but am pointing out the unecessary use of violent language/imagery to make a point rather. As to your aversion to "common good" I go back to your earlier point:

Humans are naturally social animals that figured out a long time ago that it behooved them to work together for mutual benefit. Society is simply the latest and greatest form of this social instinct, and at its core is a single rule, the non-aggression principle. Following this principle, we don't kill our fellow man or take his property, and we expect him to do the same. We don't follow this principle because we necessarily care about our fellow man; we follow this principle because we care about ourselves, and we know that we can achieve more and live better lives through cooperation

Mutual benefit and common good can easily be equated as the same with the difference being pure semantics. To state that at its core is a lone principle -"non-aggression" -is merely your opinion and I find it insufficient for a world populated to the degree that it is. Perhaps a post armageddon world consisting of a few wildmen this would suffice - but even many in the animal kingdom rely on far more then mere "non-aggression" to thrive as a successful pack or species. You may be correct that there may be an element of selfish motive in maintaining "non-aggression", but that is not the entirety of it. For example,me working coopertatively in a block watch does indeed serve to better protect my family, but it also to help protect my neighbor. I think all but psychopaths would grieve or mourn if their neighbor were harmed even though their own property/family is unharmed.

As Kipling stated, "The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack".

Edited January 24, 2012 by froggyluv

[st_dux 26]

What Im wondering is exactly how is society punishing the so called "greedy"?

Progressive taxation is an obvious example.

Surely your not suggesting that all criminality be taken out of toxic dumping? Civil Court isn't a strong enough deterrent.

As long as the damages awarded are sufficient, of course civil court is a strong enough deterrent. A business isn't going to choose to pollute a water source if it isn't profitable to do so, and tort law is enough to ensure that it isn't.

Mutual benefit and common good can easily be equated as the same with the difference being pure semantics. To state that at its core is a lone principle -"non-aggression" -is merely your opinion and I find it insufficient for a world populated to the degree that it is. Perhaps a post armageddon world consisting of a few wildmen this would suffice - but even many in the animal kingdom rely on far more then mere "non-aggression" to thrive as a successful pack or species. You may be correct that there may be an element of selfish motive in maintaining "non-aggression", but that is not the entirety of it. For example,me working coopertatively in a block watch does indeed serve to better protect my family, but it also to help protect my neighbor. I think all but psychopaths would grieve or mourn if their neighbor were harmed even though their own property/family is unharmed.

Mutual benefit is not the same as "common good"; the latter brings with it implications about helping others for the sake of helping (i.e., altruism) while the former is simply describing a situation in which one can personally benefit more by working with others than he can by working against others. The mutual benefit sought by humans is essentially self-serving, and there is nothing wrong with this.

I didn't invent the non-aggression principle, and if you look at the history of human society it seems pretty clear to me that the single consistent feature throughout is the agreement among the people within it, either implicitly or explicitly, to refrain from harming one another for the purpose of mutual benefit. This is why societies form; there would be no such thing as society if it weren't for this. As for your contention that this fundamental principle and the principles that naturally follow from it (e.g., property rights) are insufficient for a world "populated to the degree that it is," I have to ask: At what point does the world become so populated that we must adopt completely new principles as the basis for society, and what are those principles? In my view, the trouble with adopting completely new principles as the basis for society (e.g., maintenance of the "common good") is that these new principles will invariably come into conflict with the non-aggression principle, the original cornerstone of society, which threatens the very existence of society.

In advocating the non-aggression principle as the primary law in governance, I am not suggesting that people simply refrain from killing each other and beyond that stop cooperating. Your pack animal example is quite correct, and obviously people rely on others in their day-to-day affairs to an extent that goes far beyond not harming each other. My point is that these day-to-day affairs have nothing to do with government and should be left to individuals to deal with without interference. I think that most people would feel the way that you do in your neighborhood watch example, but that doesn't mean that people should have to feel that way; if someone participates in a neighborhood watch purely out of self-interest, I don't see this as problematic.

[Fox '09 14]

Progressive taxation is an obvious example.

yes, but we're not punishing them for being greedy. I don't think wealthy people care that much about their taxes being raised to 50 percent, it's a mark on their pocketbook. If you tax the regular joe it makes it more difficult for him to pay his obligations. Plus, if wealthy people are taxed more, they may choose to keep their money in their business to reinvest.

I don't see why people who are making millions of dollars a year can't pay more in taxes to help pay down deficits during a financial crisis. It makes sense. Sure, they won't be able to cover all of it, and nobody is suggesting they pay 100 percent of their income or what have you. They didn't create the deficits, the country did, and everyone has to pay more for it, but wealthy people should pay more because they have more.

I understand if it's principle to not vote on tax increases, but if you vote against having the top 1 percent having their taxes raised to 35-40 percent, you look like the rest of the sellouts. They can afford it, the middle class can't. I understand what you're saying, but on its face, as I said, it looks like you're just greedy. And that's not a good message to relay to most people. I ask for a better explanation of the position. I like a lot of what libertarians say, but the argument against progressive taxation baffles me.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Fox '09
edited

[st_dux 26]

yes' date=' but we're not punishing them for being greedy. I don't think wealthy people care that much about their taxes being raised to 50 percent, it's a mark on their pocketbook. If you tax the regular joe it makes it more difficult for him to pay his obligations. Plus, if wealthy people are taxed more, they may choose to keep their money in their business to reinvest.[/quote']

First of all, when you consider capital gains taxes and the inane corporate tax, most top 1% of earners are already giving roughly 50% of their income to the government. Disproportionately raising the tax rate on the richest segment of society further has the effect of creating a negative incentive toward accumulating that much wealth in the first place; it becomes easier and more practical to just stop once you reach a certain level rather than try to swim against a rising tide of taxation. This means less business expansion, which means less job creation and ultimately less taxes collected overall.

I don't see why people who are making millions of dollars a year can't pay more in taxes to help pay down deficits during a financial crisis. It makes sense. Sure' date=' they won't be able to cover all of it, and nobody is suggesting they pay 100 percent of their income or what have you. They didn't create the deficits, the country did, and everyone has to pay more for it, but wealthy people should pay more because they have more.[/quote']

People making millions of dollars per year already do pay more. Even without a progressive taxation system, people who make more are going to pay more. What the progressives label as asking the rich to "pay their fair share" is actually much more akin to asking them to pay far more than their fair share. This is not only patently unfair; it's also bad economic policy as it hurts growth and doesn't really accomplish anything as far as reducing the national debt goes.

[froggyluv 2136]

A little perspective here:

From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes

Ever since revealing his approximate tax rate last week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has taken heat from rivals and critics over what he said he pays on income derived mostly from capital gains, "probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything." Today, he released his tax returns, showing that he paid an even lower rate of less than 14 percent in 2010. Historically, tax rates on capital gains have not been so low since the Great Depression.

Under President George W. Bush, the maximum capital gains tax rate was 15.35 percent. The highest capital gains tax rate in U.S. history was put in place under Woodrow Wilson's presidency during World War I, when it was as high as 73 percent, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

"A substantial portion of his income is probably not taxed at all," Williams said before Romney released his tax returns Tuesday and revealed that he paid a 13.9 percent tax rate. "His taxable income is certain to be below his total income."

Read the tax increase/decrease here. Obama is hardly the "Rich killer" some are trying to paint him to be. Romney seems to be fairing quite well under the current system -wonder how many jobs are trickling down from his savings...:rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html

[Fox '09 14]

First of all, when you consider capital gains taxes and the inane corporate tax, most top 1% of earners are already giving roughly 50% of their income to the government. Disproportionately raising the tax rate on the richest segment of society further has the effect of creating a negative incentive toward accumulating that much wealth in the first place; it becomes easier and more practical to just stop once you reach a certain level rather than try to swim against a rising tide of taxation. This means less business expansion, which means less job creation and ultimately less taxes collected overall.

People making millions of dollars per year already do pay more. Even without a progressive taxation system, people who make more are going to pay more. What the progressives label as asking the rich to "pay their fair share" is actually much more akin to asking them to pay far more than their fair share. This is not only patently unfair; it's also bad economic policy as it hurts growth and doesn't really accomplish anything as far as reducing the national debt goes.

For the first part, how do you know that they will simply take less in profits from their companies and instead have the company invest? I know it's a simple thing to say, but like Bill Maher said once, wealthy people aren't some sort of rare species of bird that is going to fly away after you tax them .

?

I find it difficult to believe the top 1 percent is paying 50 percent of their earnings, do you have any links to help me understand this?

If they are paying 50 percent at the current rate, what on earth were they paying during ronald reagan's tax rates for the top 1 percent?

also I'm curious what libertarians think about speculation.

[froggyluv 2136]

For the first part, how do you know that they will simply take less in profits from their companies and instead have the company invest?

This is 'trickle down economic' phallacy. The rich are richer then they've ever been -so following that logic we would have more jobs now then ever. You are far more likely to see disproportionate CEO salaries then to see that money reinvested into hirings.

wealthy people aren't some sort of rare species of bird that is going to fly away after you tax them

Akin to a spoilt child that has two hand fulls of candy screaming "Buy me ice cream or Im running away!!". Scare tactic is all. A good portion of my client base are wealthy and they are the most likely to try and haggle down my prices and want "more for their money" then a standard hard worker who tend to appreciate more.

I find it difficult to believe the top 1 percent is paying 50 percent of their earnings, do you have any links to help me understand this?

Follow the link above -Romney, the richest of all the candidates pays the lowest tax rate. You show me a wealthy person that pays 50% and Ill show you a fool with a bad tax attorney.

Conservatives and the Republican party were once the party of the country club rich -a minority in this country. How do you win an election against the majority of middle class and poor? You wrap yourself around the flag, yell "freedom" and "America -F*ck yeah" alot and align yourselves with religious morality groups all the while your having affairs and doing blow like a Studio 54 party. It tends to work regardless.

Edited January 25, 2012 by froggyluv

[binkster 0]

A little perspective here:

From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes

Read the tax increase/decrease here. Obama is hardly the "Rich killer" some are trying to paint him to be. Romney seems to be fairing quite well under the current system -wonder how many jobs are trickling down from his savings...:rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/eisenhower-obama-wealthiest-americans-pay-taxes-193734550--abc-news.html

He paid 14% because he had already paid taxes on the money that is actually making him money. One way of looking at it he is getting taxed twice.

Just because he has money doesnt mean he is evil. I also saw where Mitt gave double what he paid in taxes to Charity. Why do people think the government can take more money from the private market and do what they want with it?

Im in the middle class and I thank the 1%ers everyday. They made it big and have money. That is their money and they should do what they want with it.

Redistribution is the worst idea ever. Why does the government think they can controll money better than an individual.....

[Fox '09 14]

Redistribution is the worst idea ever. Why does the government think they can controll money better than an individual.....

I'd rather take money from the private economy in exchange for a universal healthcare system. I'd rather give up some GDP growth for that. If you disagree, I understand your position, but I would rather move in the direction of Europe and Canada. It works for them, it can work for us. It's not that I doubt the libertarian view will work, I would rather move towards a system that is known to work and many other countries already have.

So to sum it up: yes, I trust goverment. Just not mine in the way it functions presently.

[froggyluv 2136]

He paid 14% because he had already paid taxes on the money that is actually making him money.

Mmmm, yeah ok...:rolleyes:

Just because he has money doesnt mean he is evil

Never said it did.

Why do people think the government can take more money from the private market and do what they want with it?

My business pays taxes and so does everyone else's. Did you even read the flowchart of previous administrations tax levels? My point is that they are falsely portraying the current as communist wealth redistributors.

Im in the middle class and I thank the 1%ers everyday

Thats purely your perogative but I for one see that as sad - I'm sure the 1% thank god for voters like you every election cycle. Like Buffet said, "Me and Mitt are just money movers and scrape up the profits. Its not like we go to work breaking our back everyday.." Or something to that effect :)