the 70% tax bracket we had for super rich before the reagan admin served several purposes. One was that it forced them to re-invest profits rather than taking them. and that created jobs. now they build $50 million dollar homes in bel air. but they still create jobs... gardener, butler, handyman, pool boy, maid...etc.

>> ^mysdrial:

People side with them because they've convinced themself that one day, through hard work and persistence, they will be one of them.
Another part of the American mythology, I suppose. Still, sad as hell to see it.


I don't think that's quite it. People know they will never be part of the super-rich elite, but they still live under the delusion that that they toil under the same banner as the super-rich. They think that if the rich get tax breaks, then then the middle-class will profit from it. Part of it is the trickle-down mentality, even though the last three decades have proven that the only trickling is upward.

The real problem is that the common middle-class republican voter thinks their wagon is hitched to the prosperity super-rich. When the truth is that they are just wheat for the harvest. Maybe, if you're lucky, you get fattened up first. And if you are more lucky, you die before the super-rich chew you up in the financial combine. But just because you are still prospering doesn't mean you're not in the same field as the rest of us.

And the very worst part is that the super-rich have convinced the average republican voter into believing that the harvester is an out-of-control monster set loose by the democrats, when the truth is that they're driving it.

For proof of this, see the disparity of beliefs about the economy. Are the rich suffering? No. Even though it was their gambling that caused the meltdown, even though it was their money that disappeared, they are doing better than ever. No one went to jail, and all the big firms were bailed out, so the bonuses never even stopped. They're more profitable than ever before, but unemployment is still at record highs. All the money that should have funded more jobs went straight into the pockets of the billionaires.

But do the republicans see this? No. Heck, even some of the democrats don't see it. That's why so many republicans were elected last year. Despite the fact that the wealthy elite sank our economy with the full faith and support of the republican party, people still think the republicans are going to get the economy floating again.

Morons.

Think of it as trickle up economics. Through taxes, you take stagnant funds from the super rich and use them for infrastructure projects (taking up the slack for the lack of decent paying private sector jobs) and in the process creating jobs and wealth for the working class. Then these newly employed people put all that earned cash back into the economy, creating profit for business and tax revenue for the government. It's redistribution of wealth, but done in such a way that the money trickles back to where it started, helping everyone else along the way as that money finds its way once again into corporate coffers. In order to make a big enough dent in unemployment, the stimulus package needs to be massive. This plan worked well for FDR, effectively ending the great depression, which is no small feat. Obama's much less ambitious stimulus plan was not enough to get the job done.



>> ^blankfist:

^Haha. Obama's stimulus was too small, he says. Fuck me sideways, I'll never understand you statists. Maybe we should print another couple trillion or so, keep feeding it to the top percent in the corporatist and banking machine see if that helps the poor out this time? Maybe the banks will lend this time? Or maybe the corporatist giants won't take the golden parachute this time and instead will reinvest in American jobs?
If it doesn't work, we can always say the amount wasn't enough and start all over again.

We Americans have a trained Pavlovian negative response the phrase 'redistribution of wealth', but only when that wealth is moving from super rich to super poor. Every financial transaction is a redistribution of wealth, and poor people giving their money to the rich is never seen as a bad thing. If all that free market fairy tale bullshit really worked, and profits magically turned themselves into jobs and revenue for poor people, it would be one thing, but it just doesn't work that way. Money flows in one direction and stagnates at the top, while the people doing all the hard work at the bottom suffer. We need to rethink our archaic cold war era economic concepts. Those stagnant funds need to be liberated.

The idiots at freedomain couldn't answer my questions and blocked me. I'm guest_14d3.

[20:20:52] Guest_14d3:
Had a question about anarchy. Any takers?
[20:21:42] Noesis to Guest_14d3:
I'm at least willing to listen.
[20:22:09] Guest_14d3:
How is an anarchy enacted or enforced?
[20:22:38] Guest_14d3:
What's to stop corporations from swooping in and taking control?
[20:22:41] aelephant:
Anarchy is enacted and enforced voluntarily.
[20:22:48] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
corporations
[20:22:51] Noesis to Guest_14d3:
So you haven't listened to Stefan's podcasts, or watched his videos, or read his books, then?
[20:22:54] aelephant:
De-centralization of authority.
[20:22:57] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
are legal fictions created and maintained by governments
[20:23:25] aelephant:
What's to stop you from punching me? I might punch you back.
[20:24:07] Guest_14d3:
Say a corporation comes and takes your property? Who is to stop them?
[20:24:23] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
who is to stop them now lol
[20:24:25] aelephant:
You could arm yourself and practice self-defense.
[20:24:34] Guest_14d3:
The state stops them now.
[20:24:39] aelephant:
You could hire out your self-defense to a protection agency.
[20:24:40] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
my property would be covered with land mines
[20:24:51] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
corporations are created by governments
[20:24:52] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
and preferably id like to have a gatling gun
[20:24:57] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
But who stops the government from taking your property?
[20:25:14] senorbuzco to aelephant:
IMMINENT DOMAIN
[20:25:22] Guest_14d3:
The corporation hires blackwater to demine your home and disable your weaponry. What do you do now?
[20:25:58] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
sooooo how is this different from right now?
[20:26:02] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
where is the cooperation getting fiunding for this?
[20:26:16] Guest_14d3:
The state protects private property. Are you unaware of this?
[20:26:19] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Why is the corporation willing to pay Blackwater so much to demine my home and disable my weaponry (at considerable threat to their own life and limb)?
[20:26:45] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
The state has no duty to protect. Are you unaware of this?
[20:26:51] Guest_14d3:
Also, if your contention is that your system offers no benefit over the current one, then why are you pushing for it?
Sam left this room.
[20:27:03] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you're basically saying "once you replace government with government, what happens?"
[20:27:15] Guest_14d3:
The state protects private property. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
[20:27:28] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
That is not what the courts have ruled.
[20:27:33] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
ever heard of imminent domain
[20:27:35] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
or taxes
[20:27:42] Guest_14d3:
How is anarchy enforced. What is to stop the super rich from taking control?
[20:27:52] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
D.C.'s highest court [said] that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."
[20:27:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
the super rich USE THE STATE to take control
[20:27:57] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
because they'd go broke
[20:28:30] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
[20:28:41] Guest_14d3:
True, the Rich use the state, but only because they are forced to. Without the state as a middle man, their power would be limitless.
[20:29:04] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Not at all. The State makes the wealth of the rich much more powerful than it otherwise would be.
[20:29:28] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
whoa, i never thought of it like that before
[20:29:29] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
In an anarchic society $100,000 buys you $100,000 worth of goods
[20:29:35] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
i have to rethink this whole anarchy thing
[20:29:44] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
In a Statist society, $100,000 might buy you a politician
[20:29:48] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you're making great points
[20:29:51] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
and all of the power that comes along with that
[20:30:43] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
read this brah: praxeology.net/invisible-hands-and-incantations.pdf
[20:30:59] Guest_14d3:
Not at all? You have no idea how things would play out in an anarchy?
[20:31:27] Guest_14d3:
So, say Capitalcorp takes your land by force. What do you do?
[20:31:49] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
whose paying capitalcorp money?
[20:31:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
who's*
[20:31:59] Guest_14d3:
Customers.
[20:32:03] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
why?
[20:32:10] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
Why would Capitalcorp take my land by force? I will kill any Capitalcorp agents who come onto my property with the intent of seizing it.
[20:32:36] Guest_14d3:
Capital corp has a private army and they murder you and your family and take your land. What happens then?
[20:32:46] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
game over
[20:32:51] Guest_14d3:
Exactly.
[20:32:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
they get to the final level
[20:33:16] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
they beat the world
[20:33:42] Guest_14d3:
They beat the world, indeed.
[20:33:55] aelephant to Guest_14d3:
why would Capitalcorps army be willing to put their life and limb on the line to take my property?
[20:34:25] Guest_14d3:
Because it sits atop some kind of valuable natural resource.
[20:34:38] Guest_14d3:
You are dancing around the question.
[20:34:58] Guest_14d3:
Who is to stop them from taking your land and killing your family?
[20:35:10] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
remeber when i said that corporations are created and maintained by governments, and then you ignored that forever
[20:35:23] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
cuz i do
[20:35:28] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
who's to stop me from taking your land right now and killing your family?
[20:35:37] Guest_14d3:
So, corporations would 'voluntarily' disband?
[20:35:43] Guest_14d3:
I don't get your point.
[20:35:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
WHY DO COPROATIONS EXSIST AND HAVE POWER
[20:35:56] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
when companies dont provide a service they go broke
[20:35:57] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
THE FUCKING STATE
[20:36:11] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
THE STATE THAT TAXES ME
[20:36:17] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
AND GIVE IT TO CORPORATIONS
[20:36:19] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
AND THEIR BEHEST
Guest_1746 joined the room.
[20:37:04] Guest_14d3:
You don't think a large business could sustain itself without a government?
[20:37:07] Guest_14d3:
Why is that?
[20:37:29] Guest_14d3:
As long as they turn a profit, they can do as they please.
[20:37:32] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Do yu listen to the fdr podcasts?
Guest_69fa joined the room.
[20:37:37] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
you*
[20:38:36] Guest_14d3:
What leads you to believe big business is not self sufficient?
[20:38:46] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
subsidies
[20:38:47] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
lol
[20:38:55] senorbuzco to Guest_14d3:
TAXES
[20:39:11] Guest_1746:
that doesnt make sense
[20:39:19] Guest_14d3:
How so?
[20:39:31] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Do you listen to the fdr podcasts?
[20:39:48] Guest_14d3:
Exxon Mobile makes billions. They have a product that we cannot live without. They don't need the government to survive.
[20:39:58] Guest_14d3:
Not interested in the podcasts.
Guest_0f56 left this room.
[20:40:15] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
In that case, I'm blockin ya
[20:40:20] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Show ya how anarchy works
[20:40:21] Stephen C to Guest_14d3:
Bye
[20:40:29] Guest_14d3:
put your fingers in your ears.
[20:40:47] Guest_14d3:
Wouldn't want to question your pre conceived notions.

Let me give you something more to work with:

xXx xXx Rah! Rah! Rah! Capitalizm sux! Socialism rulez! Capitalism redistributes wealth to the super rich at the expense of the underclasses! Socialism redistributes stagnant wealth from those who hoard to those in need! Long live the proletariat! From each according to his ability! Seize the means of production! Power to the people! This land is your land, this land is my land! 911 is a joke in this town! Barbara Streisand has a posse! Meat is murder! xXx xXx

Better?

I'll start by saying that I believe everything Goolsbee says here is true.

I think the problem is that the framing of the issue is too narrow.

Let's start with his list of Republican priorities vs. Obama's priorities. He uses the antiseptic euphemisms about "Top 2%" and "Bottom 98%", when the words he needs to be using are "the super-rich" and "everyone else".

He also should be mentioning that if we're going to go further into debt right now to help the economy, the best thing we could do to help it is to increase government spending, but because Republicans don't care about anything but making sure the rich don't have any obligations to anyone but themselves, they won't even talk to us about that.

It's true that all the tax cuts he put on the Obama side of the chart are tax cuts the left would like, the problem is that to replace the lost revenue, we should be raising taxes on the rich, so revenues overall go up, or at least stay the same.

The reason being, the Republicans understand that this is a long game. They want to see revenues go down, no matter what. If deficits keep going out of control, they think this benefits them, because then they have an excuse to cut back on the programs that help poor people that used to be paid for with money collected from rich people, because Democrats are too chickenshit (or bought) to actually raise taxes on the rich.

Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, even the ones for the poor and middle classes, is a win for us. It might be unpopular, but that's why you make it clear that it's the Republicans who let it happen by refusing to see reason. It should be easy, they act unreasonable all the damn time.

Of course, I don't really want them all to go away, I want Obama's original tax plan to go through. But I'd rather see them all go up than let the cuts for the top 2% get extended another day, because otherwise we've screwed ourselves in the long game. If they pass, and the economy recovers, the overtly right-wing mainstream media will credit the Bush tax cuts that Obama was forced to extend by heroic Republicans who only had 42 seats in the Senate at the time.

If it doesn't, the overtly right-wing mainstream media will blame the deficits that Obama created with "wasteful government spending" -- even though all of the waste was the tax cuts!

He needs to start framing his policies and political messaging with the long game in mind, instead of these shortsighted half-measures that might do a little short-term good. Nobody believes that these left-wing tax cuts Goolsbee is highlighting will fix the economy, and no one thinks that in 2020 we'll look back on that part of the tax cut package and think of it as the thing that saved the economy. All this package does is cede the overall argument to the other side (namely that only tax cuts for the rich help the economy), and advance their long-term strategies to destroy the country by "starving the beast".

Geesus and blankfist,
Yes, citizenship is bestowed upon birth in most countries, and yes, taxes are a pretty basic, common sensical part of a successful civilization. (I'd lurve to here some examples to the contrary if you've gottem) There aren't many countries that don't have taxes. The few exceptions are failed states like Darfur and Somalia.

If you don't like living in a modern civilization, you can either go galt and move to darfur, go off the grid -unibomber style- or work from the inside to change our system to something more anarchical. The last one probably won't happen, because I don't think there has ever been a successful country that didn't have taxes, so just basic common sense is your enemy in this fight.

Beyond all this, I'd think you two would be more happy, because we are about to see government elected on all that free market rhetoric that you both so oft spew.

A huge wave of corporate candidates wrapped in the flag, waving free market ideology have been swept into office, taking over a majority of state legislatures, governors mansions and the house. That combined with a supreme court in the pocket, a filabustable senate and a President who doesn't like to use executive orders very often (which is basically the only thing he can do from here on out), means that free market ideology will have free reign. I expect you will see much privatization, deregulation and tax cuts in areas that benefit big business. Also, Iran is back on the table, because markets just love all the money there is to be found in the weapons of war and the plunder of resources. Tax giveaways to the super-rich are also taking a front seat.

It's ugly, smelly and not too bright, but it's still your baby, it has your DNA. Kiss the baby.

No, absolutely not. I rarely make slippery slope arguments, but in this case, I will. I never want to give our system incentive to kill yet more citizens. Start this process, and it won't take long before we see minor crimes getting capitol sentences. The influence of the super-rich, who have the longest lifespans and thus the greatest chance to need (and can afford) transplants, will ensure it.

Liberal media control... both sides have their propaganda, just watch Fox News.

Banning what you eat? I've never seen this as a talking point for liberals

How about banning important research for curing diseases because it uses stem cells?
How does that preserve our freedom. Yet it's a common conservative talking point.
Or banning violent video games sales to kids, (parents should decide imo) conservatives did try to do that today right?

I'm still in college right now so I'm not paying taxes. I however will have no problem paying taxes, even high taxes if I feel it is helping support government programs that help our country. The idea that the upper class having lower taxes will help our economy is flawed in my opinion. By lowering taxes for the upper class you are throwing away the largest potential tax income for the country.

I understand the trickle down effect, and it is a highly debated economic theory. I however think that when you have people with hundreds of millions of dollars getting huge tax breaks it hurts the country as a whole. I just think that their taxed income would help our society more in government programs, than in a bank.

My tax code is probably not as crazy as you think if you care to look it up, income tax on money earned over 400,000 used to be over 90% In the 1960's, I also venture that our country was a lot better off back then, when the super-rich had a sense American Pride, and were not just trying to get people elected so they can pile their money up higher, while creating an illusion of everyone being better off from lower taxes. Americans should be ashamed to amass $90 billion for their families (Waltons). Greed is not good.

>> ^Mashiki:

Well lets see we can start with various forms of entertainment control. And the various flappy headed talks of control on 'violent media'. Then we can go on the 'we're going to/want to ban what you eat' mode.
You should be supporting lower taxes. Raising them doesn't do you any good, but since your tax code is a mess I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. High taxation leads to people shoveling their money elsewhere, and buying only the basics. Prosperity comes from having disposable income.

Actually, I agree with Mikus.

But if you are going to let some expire, let it be on the super rich.

We are babies in this country, wanting something for nothing.

I stumbled across an internet posting by a tax client (I do taxes), railing at someone because they supported the healthcare reform. He railed about how he had to pay for it.

Well, I do his taxes. I happen to know that he hasn't paid doodly squat in taxes on the federal level for several years -- in fact, got huge rebates due to having kids.

He also works for a state government -- his income is 100% taxpayer funded.

Maybe his healthcare premiums did go up. But he has paid jack sh*t to the federal government.

The hypocrisy of it astounds me.

>> ^chilaxe:

What I do object to is what seems to be the attitude in my liberal community that liberalism doesn't need to be self-critical and try to continually decrease its error rate.
For that reason, the safest prediction seems to be that its error rate will remain at the same level. (That's why liberals in Canada were surprised to find they had elected their enemy Harper, even though they had 4 years to ponder US liberals' 2000 loss.)


I don't get the sense that liberals aren't self-critical enough. On the contrary, the problem I see is that we can't stop being self-critical long enough to actually form a cohesive bloc that can agree on a course of action and rally around it.

I'm not sure what the fix for that really is. Republicans get a lot of mileage out of strong, hierarchical discipline, but as a result they seem to have zero capability to have self-critical conversations anymore.

I was kinda hoping Obama would spend a little more time trying to rally and unify liberals than make all these ill-fated attempts to reach out to conservatives.

>> ^chilaxe: ultimately, I cast my lot in with the marxist theorists who believe advanced technology will free humankind. Best of luck.



No, actually you like to "play it safe" and "be reasonable" and not rock the boat with anybody like Ralph Nader because it means you might have to do some fighting for what you believe in.

You believe in the "slow and steady" method of reasoned democracy which has lead us to the place we are today.

Like Nader said, "You settled for the lesser of two evils...but you still got evil."

>> ^NetRunner: "...can't be won by refusing to support incremental moves towards the ultimate goal."


Sure, NR, because we've seen how much success the Democrats have had with those "incremental moves" over the course of the past two years.

The cons still run the show, even though they're in the minority.

And Nader was right. When he said "There's virtually no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans" he was right, and the congressional record of the last two years proves it.

No, the Dems don't get my vote any more. No more votes for nothing. No more votes for empty promises.

>> ^rougy:

>> ^NetRunner:
In other words, your advice has already long since been taken.
And in taking his advice, you have lost my support.


Eh, I dunno why you want to start being standoffish with me. I've got no beef with the idealists and dreamers in the liberal/progressive movement, I'm just not one of them. We're still on the same team -- I want to see those pie-in-the-sky liberal ideas put into practice, I just think the way there from here will take time and hard work, and can't be won by refusing to support incremental moves towards the ultimate goal.

That said, I'm pretty ticked off at the lack of movement from the 111th Congress myself. I'm certainly starting to feel like something's going to have to give soon.