Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Romney/Ryan 2012
Display Avatars Sort By:
Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Getting on 10/10/2012 00:29:35 MDT Print View


Since when in an armed conflict does one have an obligation to capture and put their foe on trial?

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Getting on 10/10/2012 06:50:23 MDT Print View

They tried to bring Bin Laden back alive but he shot back so they had no choice.

I don't think we should "get" people. But, Obama, who has tried to bring back people for trial and worked within the law, has had more success than the people who talked tougher.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Rich on 10/10/2012 07:05:20 MDT Print View


You showed some statistics showing the top 5% are paying their fair share of taxes.

I showed that the top 0.1% and especially 0.01% are not. And big corporations.

That means that the people between 0.1% and 5% are paying taxes, maybe even a little more to offset the super rich

And there aren't enough people in the top 0.1% or 0.01% to totally solve the deficit, but it would be one piece of the puzzle

It's that capital gains are taxed at 15%. Most of the super rich have large investments so most of their income is capital gains.

There are two "evil genious" aspects to this:

People that are well off, like the 0.1% to 5% or 10% people, pay lots of taxes so want taxes reduced and are motivated voters for Republicans. But you guys are getting screwed. The tax cuts that they talk about are for the 0.1% and especially 0.01%. And the chance of being in that group is remote.

Upper middle income people occasionally get some capital gains and pay less tax. And then say "neat! I like this reduced capital gains tax!". But you're being conned. Only a little of your income will ever be capital gains. It's the 0.1% and 0.01% that are making out like bandits.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Rich on 10/10/2012 08:34:39 MDT Print View

"But you guys are getting screwed. .... But you're being conned."

When are liberals going to realize that calling the 'other side' stupid isn't going to win converts?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Flat tax on 10/10/2012 08:37:20 MDT Print View

I'll agree with you Jerry. One tax for all, no deductions (save depreciation/depletion), no C-corp tax, and tax capital gains as ordinary income. No federal emmissions tax, diesel / fuel tax, lightbulb tax, etc. No more short term, long term bs. No healthcare or charity deductions. 8-12% Or a consumption tax suits me.


You showed some statistics showing the top 5% are paying their fair share of taxes.

I showed that the top 0.1% and especially 0.01% are not. And big corporations."

Corporations shouldn't be paying any taxes, period. What is it about BIG corporations anyway? WTH is a big corporation?

Now you are down to moving your decimal point around? Why do you hate wealthy people not paying taxes... If they are playing by the rules? Let's stick it to the 0.00001%. Capital gains (15%-LT) is not typically how the wealthy reduce their taxes. I'm beginning to believe you don't understand how an individual with $10million in income can pay no taxes.

Don't insult my intelligence telling me that proposed tax reductions benefit only the top 0.00001%.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Flat tax on 10/10/2012 08:44:16 MDT Print View

"Corporations shouldn't be paying any taxes, period."

Then they shouldn't have the same rights as 'people' under the law.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Rich on 10/10/2012 08:52:49 MDT Print View

Doug - you're probably right - I'm just frustrated - I should be more diplomatic or something. I don't like to beat around the bush. I wouldn't make a good politician.

I don't think that Fred and Brad and Micheal are stupid. They have good points.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Flat tax on 10/10/2012 09:09:53 MDT Print View

Sorry Fred, I didn't mean to imply that you're not intelligent : ) Is that better, Doug?

How do the wealthy not pay taxes?

Flat tax wouldn't be all that bad, especially if you exempted the first $20,000 or something.

I don't have a problem with exempting charitable contributions. If someone wants to transfer some of their income to a charity, fine. Although it bothers me that, for example, Romney writes off all these contributions to his church, that then pushes proposition 8 in California. You shouldn't be able to write off charitable contributions that go to politicing. Maybe you're right, no charitable exemption.

When they proposed tax cuts in the recent past, the result was large tax cuts for super-rich, modest if any cuts for the rest of us. Now, when they do the same thing I suspect we'll see the same result. One of their proposals is to eliminate tax on capital gains.

Your statistics for upper 5% and mine for 0.1% and 0.01% prove my point.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
point? on 10/10/2012 11:49:23 MDT Print View

I don't guess I get your point, except you want to hose the "rich", whether they report taxable income or not. Let's stick it to those guys that pony up cash for a drilling venture that happens to lower their taxable income or the ones that invest in start-ups. Again I don't get it. Fair share is laughable. We passed fair a long time ago. How bout, no taxes, no votes for fair?

Harald Hope
(hhope) - M

Locale: East Bay
what about that bs about taking responsibility on 10/10/2012 11:49:53 MDT Print View

Brad, why not assign some responsibility for damaging the economy to bush? What, does that notion of taking personal responsibility for failures only apply to non republicans?

Individuals don't make or break economies, long term strategies, material realities, global flows of capital, plus resource constraints etc are massive levers. These issues don't fit into sound bites and talking points.

Once you get out of the US centric view that particularly us corporate media promotes, you'll notice that economic issues are global today, not regional, and that's because we have entered into a new phase of global economic stress. The actual question, which neither side can address because to do so guarantees their loss in the elections, is how to deal with some rapidly altering global resource and climate and other major issues, including oil production having basically peaked globally, which is why global economies are crashing and grinding to a halt. You can't 'fix' this in 4 years, that's a childish view, like, oh, daddy, why haven't you fixed my broken toy yet. You can adjust to it, and begin moving to make things adapt and slowly deleverage, you can break apart huge corporate entities, and relocalize economies, but you can't do that today and get elected in most parts of the country on a national level, no corporations will fund that activity.

Some very perceptive observers have noted that the move to debt based state, corporate, and personal economics, which is what we have in the US to a sick degree, but which most of the first, second, and third world also are engaged in, is / was caused by an event that is unfolding ongoing, ie, essentially hitting the top of global resource consumption/production, which means stuff gets more expensive, harder to mine/drill, and you have to use more of the resources of an economy just to aquire and extract resources, which leaves less for everyone else. When you combine this with an aggressive redistribution of wealth, such as the US has undergone since the 80s (which is why those tax numbers listed above show that, the rich control more capital, assets, etc, the actual fair representation is to compare apples to apples, income taxes paid, corporate taxes paid, etc, then the picture changes radically). It's doubtful the US, and maybe most of Europe, have had actual 'growth' since the 90s, and it's certain that what we are now calling 'growth' is actually a non admitted inflation. You can see this in food, fuel, and resource prices, the dollar buys less, so do most currencies that float freely on the global market.

The technical thing that Bush, and Obama, were/are doing wrong, besides not aggressively prosecuting financial industry criminals, is continuing the zero interest rates, which encourages irresponsible speculation, particularly in a radically underregulated financial sector. To understand this, you have to be able to grasp that when you can get free money, ie, no interest, or almost zero interest, any speculation you do with that money that can generate more than 1 or so return annually is pure profit. So if you take that money, leverage it, then use that to buy a real company, then sell off the assets, or combine it with another one that sort of fits, and cut out a bunch of jobs in the process, you have not 'created' a dime of wealth, you have extracted already existing wealth, siphoned off some of the top part, used the capital to pay off the loan, then you pocket the difference. That's what Baine capital, and almost all large scale investment groups, do today. That's not wealth creation, that's simply redirecting the wealth into fewer pockets, which does the society that supports that action no good at all. But that's just a symptom of the above larger trends, ie, when growth per se stops, capital continues to seek out ways to generate returns, and begins to cannibalize its host nations and economies. That's roughly where we are today. Doesn't mean all capital does this, just a lot of it. That's why in the 2000s we'd reached the insane situation where finance as an arm of our economy was alleged to be 'creating' or 'producing' I believe it was 40%, at the worst bush years point, of the money in t6he usa. I believe it was 40%, correct that if it's wrong. That's insane, since all capital d0es in a real sense of wealth creation is fund actual enterprises that create things, when capital begins to spin its own webs, like CDOs, tranched mortgage securities, and other, even more abstracted constructions which I'll try to explain to republicans here if they want, and I'll source the data and information, but only if requested, ie, only if people in this thread want to skip the kindergarten fantasy stories they keep repeating and get back to actual reality.

However, part of the bigger picture is that the US has now allowed capital, cash, money, to have an unprecedented degree of raw influence over our political system, this is a fact, not a fantasy. This creates a situation where you have corporations, which are by law mandated to maximize shareholder value (shareholders, by the way, now increasingly are also the people who run them, since they hold so much stock, options etc), following the course mandated by laws that they themselves are creating and lobbying for, to maximize profits. And the best way to do that currently is not investing in new production, but to lobby for advantage from the state. Nothing returns higher yields at this point. Microsoft gave a few million to both sides during their anit trust penalty phase that resulted in a change of judge, and a mere slap on the hand. Those few millions saved them many billions.

That's also why regulations fail, when you have industries writing the regulations, which they often do, for example, to discourage competitors who maybe can't afford to comply, that has a really good result, in that the smaller people then point to the regulations, and vote right to get rid of them, rather than focusing on the real problems at hand.

Bush wasn't a tough guy, what a load, he evaded his military service, he was a drunk, he only did work that his rich / powerful dad's connections created for him, and he was one of the laziest guys around. And he involved us in two 'wars' that are much better seen as a massive and ongoing transfer of wealth from the american tax payer to a bunch of highly profitable defense contracting corporations, who of course now are able to lobby for never leaving since it's so darn profitable to keep these low level conflicts going, they eat up materials, most of the staff are mercenaries, aka 'contractors', not real soldiers, something that is creating morale problems in the military, since you will have food servers in bases making far more than the soldiers they are feeding, etc.

Now you guys can return to your junior high popularity contest version of reality, yes, Romney was a better actor than Obama in the last debate, better coached, more focus group work done to work on pr problems, great. Neither party is going to deal with the real problems we face, and there won't be any real chance of that happening until full campaign finance reform, not superficial, happens, and that's not going to happen now that the corporations and the political system got carte blanche to go ahead in the citizen's united act. The only chance we have at this point is to remove corporate personhood as a legal construct, and remove them from politics, then maybe we can have actual political discussions that talk about real problems again, that will be nice.

Of course, the antienvironment, anti regulation, pro becoming a second world country party remains the most bizarre thing to see anyone here on a backpacking form supporting, as the slightly less bad of two bads, at least the democrats pay lip service to our ecological issues, and national parks, and so on, and now and then actually try to support them.

The thing I've noticed is the total contempt the right is developing for history and facts, I find that extremely worrying, and for science, and various other non ideologically oriented ways humans have come up with to understand their world. Romney is one of the biggest flip floppers I've ever seen, yet the same party that was attacking someone in previous elections for being a flipflopper, well now it's ok, you know, because really what counts is to destroy the government as quickly as possible, which is the largely stated aim of the neocons, well, except for all the money, our money, they like to funnel to their supporters in quantities never before imagined as possible. Good times, lol.

The main problem of the democratic party is that they aren't representing people anymore, increasingly, though they do have to support certain views to get elected, this puts them in a tough spot, being the lesser of two bads is not a great selling point, but it is real, and less bad really is less bad than more bad, at least it is last time I checked.

Now let's return to sound bites, junior high sloganeering, and of course, repeating verbatim whatever fox news and rush have decided are today's talking points, all, of course, dutifully and uncritically reproduced in threads like this under the guise of 'being critical'.

John Muir would puke.

Edited by hhope on 10/10/2012 12:03:49 MDT.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: point? on 10/10/2012 12:16:58 MDT Print View

No Fred, don't hose the rich

Your flat tax idea with no exemptions is pretty good, especially if you exempt the first $20K or so to make up for past inequity and give struggling people a break

So, how else do the super rich evade taxes besides capital gains? Seriously, I'm curious.

I don't understand "How bout, no taxes, no votes for fair?"

James Castleberry
Saddest thing to me on 10/10/2012 12:59:04 MDT Print View

is the loss of respect for things like the Geneva Convention. Geneva convention is meant to prevent things such as preemptive wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) and the killing of non-combatants such as we're doing by drones and as shown in the "Collateral Murder" video and as apparently happened with OBL.
Jerry said:
"Since when in an armed conflict does one have an obligation to capture and put their foe on trial?"
I don't know what part OBL played in 9/11, if any, but it would have been nice to see the case against him made in court. It's now admitted that OBL was unarmed at time of raid.
"U.S. officials have revised their account of the assault on the compound in Pakistan. Bin Laden was not armed during the 40-minute raid, they now say, but he put up resistance to U.S. forces."
I guess we should have just killed all the Nazis instead of holding the Nuremberg trials, huh?

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Saddest thing to me on 10/10/2012 13:05:17 MDT Print View

Afghanistan was retaliatory not preemptive. Or are you forgetting the dates of the invasion came AFTER 9/11?,2933,137095,00.html

Enough evidence.

Brad Fisher

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: what about that bs about taking responsibility on 10/10/2012 15:32:44 MDT Print View


Thanks for taking one of my sound bites and bashing me. However you have completely missed the point. My argument is Obama loves to take credit for any good news but bad news he blames on someone else (ie Bush). My position is well documented on this site that I think both parties are to blame for the mess. I don't trust any of them and they are both serving their own purpose to get re-elected. You explained economic issues pretty well and the blame rest on decisions made by both parties over decades. To say that one party is to blame is just ignorant. I enjoyed the read and actually agree with a lot of what you are saying.

However It is obvious you have trouble respecting the views of others. Attacking and dissing others views doesnt make you smart, just arrogant . Interesting that you call out Rush and Fox (I can agree) but how about the liberal media playing the same game?


Edited by wufpackfn on 10/10/2012 15:35:44 MDT.

Ben C
(alexdrewreed) - M

Locale: Kentucky
Liberal media on 10/10/2012 16:02:59 MDT Print View

I like(ok, not really) how often people paint a view of the media as having 2 competing views. On one side is Rush Limbaugh and Fox. The other is the "liberal" media. I have seen enough of Rush to understand he is a homophobic, race-bating, anti-feminist. He is not news. He is a peddler of hateful opinion.

Fox is only slightly more subtle in its opinion shows that it calls news. Fox will have you believe that it is fair and balanced because they raise both side of an issue("some people say Obama is a muslim and others say he is not; lets have a fair and balanced discussion"). And they will have you believe that it is news if someone questions established fact ("Trump questions where was Obama born?"). Its just not news.

I don't know who the "liberal" media is. OK, MSNBC is pretty opinion based too, but nobody watches them. The biggest criticism I can give of the major stations, other than their lack of strong substance, is the boring manner in which they report news.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Rich on 10/10/2012 16:09:23 MDT Print View

"When are liberals going to realize that calling the 'other side' stupid isn't going to win converts?"

Probably about the same time the other side stops calling liberals socialists and commies. ;)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Getting on 10/10/2012 16:22:12 MDT Print View

It isn't just an American thing. Every Empire has made the same mistakes, but history just keeps on repeating itself."

I'm well aware of that, Doug. I was addressing the current state of affairs in response to Mike's question, which was not historical in tone. Former empires still in existence as nation states all show a distinct reluctance to go around "getting" people, unless dragged reluctantly into the fray by an imperialistic US seeking a fig leaf; witness the Balkans, Iraq, Libya, to name a few recent examples. Rummy once referred to them collectively as Old Europe and my immediate reaction was that 1000 years of internecine butchery and debilitating colonial wars will do that to nations. I thought it was well articulated in the song I provided a link to: "Johnny, I hardly knew ye". Mark my words, we'll get there ourselves, hopefully soon, or suffer the consequences as we slowly rot from within for lack of money and national will to address serious problems here at home.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Got on 10/10/2012 16:30:49 MDT Print View

"To me a more interesting question is why NATO backed the Libyan rebels, but won't do anything in Syria?"

Libya is a peripheral actor, geographically, a sideshow if you will. Syria is squarely in the center of the Middle East, and involvement there could very quickly lead to a much wider conflict with the potential to disrupt oil supplies and destablize Iraq in the first instance, and other nations as the conflict continues. It could very easily render our fragile economic recovery stillborn, and push Europe into a disastrous full blown recession. It would also put serious strain on our already depleted military at a time when we are trying to disengage from such debilitating conflicts and shift our attention to Asia, where any potential conflict would be with a serious opponent like China or North Korea.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Liberal media on 10/10/2012 16:38:00 MDT Print View

Ben Crocker

The liberal media is widely documented. Sources like NBC, CBS, and CNN are liberal biased. A simple wiki search will reveal numerous studies that have demonstrated this fact. If you don't notice, it's probably because of where you stand personally.

Ken Helwig
(kennyhel77) - MLife

Locale: Scotts Valley CA via San Jose, CA
Re: Re: Re: Got on 10/10/2012 16:40:00 MDT Print View

"When are liberals going to realize that calling the 'other side' stupid isn't going to win converts?"

Probably about the same time the other side stops calling liberals socialists and commies. ;)"

SANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Tom!