if you use an estimate for 2010 by the centrist to liberal Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which pegs the share of all federal taxes for the top 1 percent at 22.7 percent.

America was founded on principles by John Locke. Those principles were that land should not only be owned by the rich. According to wikipedia Locke implies "He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem"

But actually I agree with you. If I tax the rich, they will buy fewer megayachts, (which would create jobs if U.S. regulation hadn't gutted the yacht-building industry here) and the government will just piss that tax money away on bombing Libya, or maybe homeland security irradiating pregnant women secret surface scan x-rays.

@marbles:

First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no need for incivility. It's fair to call a national figure a dumbass--being in the spotlight invites criticism--but not other sifters. kofi is not out of line. If your facts hold water you don't need the insults.

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^longde:
Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget...



WHAT?! Since when can't I call other sifters Dumbasses? Fuck them...everyone on here is a bastard and I hate them...AHHHH FUCK!

There is no need for incivility. It's fair to call a national figure a dumbass--being in the spotlight invites criticism--but not other sifters. kofi is not out of line. If your facts hold water you don't need the insults.


>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^longde:
Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget...

>> ^longde:

Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood


You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget, that any funds get back to his district after they're taken means it doesn't go to the general fund to be spent on some bullshit embassy or something. It's like taking a tax credit despite being against the income tax: it's not hypocritical, it's salvaging what you can should you fail to stop appropriation. Oh, and earmarks actually tell you what the spending is for, whereas the Fed issues trillions in new money and doesn't have to tell you where it went. Maybe you should hang around smarter message boards so you don't fall for every half-brained argument you see.

Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):


Subcommittee on Homeland Security:

• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County

• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier

• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan

• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood

• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek

• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek

• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

>> ^marinara:

promote
Remember, we've spent 700 billion dollars on homeland security since 9/11. If you think that's not enough motivation (for a false flag attack) then you probably think we went into Libya for "humanitarian aid"


Thanks for the promote, but I'm afraid most people choose the blissful ignorance of illusion over embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality.

*promote

Remember, we've spent 700 billion dollars on homeland security since 9/11. If you think that's not enough motivation (for a false flag attack) then you probably think we went into Libya for "humanitarian aid"

"starting construction on the biggest federal building project in the Washington area since the Pentagon...The project will bring together more than 15,000 employees now scattered in 35 offices"

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-09/politics/homeland.security.headquarters_1_homeland-security-historic-buildings-consolidation?_s=PM:POLITICS>
> ^bmacs27:

>> ^marbles:
disgusting lying pricks. both of them.

33 new buildings eh?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Let's agree to disagree then - and you might want to have a look at this document that gives a better rebuttal to some of your arguments than I could.

>> ^Skeeve:

1. We have these things called laws. Unless the laws are bad (which can happen) and are changed (which is possible) people are expected to abide by them. These people broke the law, therefore it is the government's responsibility to charge them or change the law.
2. Prior to 1900 a significant portion of the 10% of New York children who died before their 5th birthday died because of contaminated milk. After pasteurization the infant mortality rate dropped by two thirds. So yes, think of the children.
3. Thousands died of a typhoid outbreak in 1913 that was spread partially through the drinking of unpasteurized milk. It's not being hyperbolic to say it could happen again.
It sounds like your mind is made up on this issue, so this is my last post on the subject. I agree that the original bust was stupid and heavy handed, but I also agree with the prosecution of these people.
>> ^dag:
To say that these people are placing the public at risk for drinking raw cow's milk is ludicrous hyperbole and the kind of scare-mongering bullshit that would do the Department of Homeland Security proud.
Perhaps we should go to Level Orange in response to these Lacto-terrorists. Think of the children! Duct tape your windows to prevent raw milk from seeping in!
>> ^Skeeve:
I realize that the average person isn't going to buy their food at this place, but what about the thousands who will come into contact with a person who does?
These people are effectively choosing to become carriers of disease. Not all of them will get sick, and not all of those who do will pass it on, but it is inevitable that eventually one of the "club" members will pass on a staph infection or tuberculosis or worse.
As for it being about corporate hegemony, bullshit; no one is shutting down farmers markets, coop farms, etc. This is about people knowingly flaunting federal laws and getting slapped for it.
>> ^dag:
Yes, but this wasn't being sold at your local supermarket. This was a club of people voluntarily choosing an alternative lifestyle that they (rightfully IMO) believe provides health benefits. You are more likely to get salmonella at your local Olive Garden. This is really about corporate hedgemony, I mean WTF - guns drawn? That isn't good for anyone's health. >> ^Skeeve:
While the raid was heavy-handed, I completely agree with the prosecution of people like this.
We have organizations like the FDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a reason - to minimize the public health risks associated with the food supply including the transmission of animal diseases to humans.
These people may feel they have the right to eat contaminated food but, just like the anti-vaccine crowd, they don't think about the possible transmission of disease to others.
There are perfectly legal ways to grow/produce, acquire and eat whatever food you want, there's no reason to flaunt laws that are there for a reason.

1. We have these things called laws. Unless the laws are bad (which can happen) and are changed (which is possible) people are expected to abide by them. These people broke the law, therefore it is the government's responsibility to charge them or change the law.

2. Prior to 1900 a significant portion of the 10% of New York children who died before their 5th birthday died because of contaminated milk. After pasteurization the infant mortality rate dropped by two thirds. So yes, think of the children.

3. Thousands died of a typhoid outbreak in 1913 that was spread partially through the drinking of unpasteurized milk. It's not being hyperbolic to say it could happen again.

It sounds like your mind is made up on this issue, so this is my last post on the subject. I agree that the original bust was stupid and heavy handed, but I also agree with the prosecution of these people.

>> ^dag:

To say that these people are placing the public at risk for drinking raw cow's milk is ludicrous hyperbole and the kind of scare-mongering bullshit that would do the Department of Homeland Security proud.
Perhaps we should go to Level Orange in response to these Lacto-terrorists. Think of the children! Duct tape your windows to prevent raw milk from seeping in!
>> ^Skeeve:
I realize that the average person isn't going to buy their food at this place, but what about the thousands who will come into contact with a person who does?
These people are effectively choosing to become carriers of disease. Not all of them will get sick, and not all of those who do will pass it on, but it is inevitable that eventually one of the "club" members will pass on a staph infection or tuberculosis or worse.
As for it being about corporate hegemony, bullshit; no one is shutting down farmers markets, coop farms, etc. This is about people knowingly flaunting federal laws and getting slapped for it.
>> ^dag:
Yes, but this wasn't being sold at your local supermarket. This was a club of people voluntarily choosing an alternative lifestyle that they (rightfully IMO) believe provides health benefits. You are more likely to get salmonella at your local Olive Garden. This is really about corporate hedgemony, I mean WTF - guns drawn? That isn't good for anyone's health. >> ^Skeeve:
While the raid was heavy-handed, I completely agree with the prosecution of people like this.
We have organizations like the FDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a reason - to minimize the public health risks associated with the food supply including the transmission of animal diseases to humans.
These people may feel they have the right to eat contaminated food but, just like the anti-vaccine crowd, they don't think about the possible transmission of disease to others.
There are perfectly legal ways to grow/produce, acquire and eat whatever food you want, there's no reason to flaunt laws that are there for a reason.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

To say that these people are placing the public at risk for drinking raw cow's milk is ludicrous hyperbole and the kind of scare-mongering bullshit that would do the Department of Homeland Security proud.

Perhaps we should go to Level Orange in response to these Lacto-terrorists. Think of the children! Duct tape your windows to prevent raw milk from seeping in!

>> ^Skeeve:

I realize that the average person isn't going to buy their food at this place, but what about the thousands who will come into contact with a person who does?
These people are effectively choosing to become carriers of disease. Not all of them will get sick, and not all of those who do will pass it on, but it is inevitable that eventually one of the "club" members will pass on a staph infection or tuberculosis or worse.
As for it being about corporate hegemony, bullshit; no one is shutting down farmers markets, coop farms, etc. This is about people knowingly flaunting federal laws and getting slapped for it.
>> ^dag:
Yes, but this wasn't being sold at your local supermarket. This was a club of people voluntarily choosing an alternative lifestyle that they (rightfully IMO) believe provides health benefits. You are more likely to get salmonella at your local Olive Garden. This is really about corporate hedgemony, I mean WTF - guns drawn? That isn't good for anyone's health. >> ^Skeeve:
While the raid was heavy-handed, I completely agree with the prosecution of people like this.
We have organizations like the FDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a reason - to minimize the public health risks associated with the food supply including the transmission of animal diseases to humans.
These people may feel they have the right to eat contaminated food but, just like the anti-vaccine crowd, they don't think about the possible transmission of disease to others.
There are perfectly legal ways to grow/produce, acquire and eat whatever food you want, there's no reason to flaunt laws that are there for a reason.

I'm sure that's a HUGE consolation to the other 40 people that lost their jobs.>> ^rychan:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Wal-mart... crazy rant about how it kills your neighbors...
I've never quite understood this argument. Wal-Mart doesn't kill local businesses. It rearranges them and then creates more jobs. Every Wal-Mart that goes up has about 10 restaurants, 2 car dealerships, 1 Gamestop, a couple book stores, and a bunch of other ancillary businesses sprout up literally overnight right next to it once it opens. These places employ - that's right - your neighbors. It has been demonstrably proven over and over again that Wal-Marts increase employment and revenue in the communities they enter. Do they shake up the environment and force local shops to change it up? Of course. But for every guy that curses Wal-Mart because he had to close his Mom & Pop, there are 20 other guys who are cheering Wal-Mart as they take showers in new business money.

I agree that it's a crazy rant, but I'll take it further. Any argument about making or killing jobs is a crazy rant.
Our goal, as a society, is to reduce the number of jobs needed in stupid stuff (like retail), so that we can put more of our collective resources into things that actually improve us as a society (research, education, health care).
If a WalMart meets the retail needs of a community with 40 jobs instead of 80 independent merchants, FANTASTIC. That means we all get to spend less money on equipping and feeding ourselves, and more money on schools and space programs. If you went out of business because a WalMart showed up, your job was not adding enough value to the product to be worthwhile. Sorry, the free market has spoken. But don't worry, we haven't reduced the productive output of the human race, this just means that we have more resources to spend on science instead of mom and pop shoe stores.
So stop bragging about your stupid government project "creating hundreds of jobs". Anyone can create make-work jobs. The only job the government should be creating are those that directly serve the public good and that can't be financed on an individual scale. Basic research falls into this category. So does policing and homeland security, although I think we've gone way overboard on security spending.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Wal-mart... crazy rant about how it kills your neighbors...
I've never quite understood this argument. Wal-Mart doesn't kill local businesses. It rearranges them and then creates more jobs. Every Wal-Mart that goes up has about 10 restaurants, 2 car dealerships, 1 Gamestop, a couple book stores, and a bunch of other ancillary businesses sprout up literally overnight right next to it once it opens. These places employ - that's right - your neighbors. It has been demonstrably proven over and over again that Wal-Marts increase employment and revenue in the communities they enter. Do they shake up the environment and force local shops to change it up? Of course. But for every guy that curses Wal-Mart because he had to close his Mom & Pop, there are 20 other guys who are cheering Wal-Mart as they take showers in new business money.


I agree that it's a crazy rant, but I'll take it further. Any argument about making or killing jobs is a crazy rant.

Our goal, as a society, is to reduce the number of jobs needed in stupid stuff (like retail), so that we can put more of our collective resources into things that actually improve us as a society (research, education, health care).

If a WalMart meets the retail needs of a community with 40 jobs instead of 80 independent merchants, FANTASTIC. That means we all get to spend less money on equipping and feeding ourselves, and spend more money on schools and space programs. If you went out of business because a WalMart showed up, your job was not adding enough value to the product to be worthwhile. Sorry, the free market has spoken. But don't worry, we haven't reduced the productive output of the human race, this just means that we have more resources to spend on science instead of mom and pop shoe stores.

So stop bragging about your stupid government project "creating hundreds of jobs". Anyone can create make-work jobs. The only job the government should be creating are those that directly serve the public good and that can't be financed on an individual scale. Basic research falls into this category. So does policing and homeland security, although I think we've gone way overboard on security spending.

In the end, I generally agree with you, but I don't think it's accurate that the debt crisis is resolved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Tax increase would obviously help, but it won't solve it alone.

The debt crisis was born of a few factors:

-Stimulus package (temp, self-correcting since it's ending)
-Massive increase in federal spending in the 2000's bread by two wars, homeland security, senior drug benefit, medicare, medicaid
-Tax revenue declines due to Bush tax cuts
-Sudden sharp declines in income and capital gains tax revenues due to economic collapse

We can't solve the whole thing by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. In fact, I would argue the first step in resolving it is get the economy back on track to increase income tax revenues naturally as the unemployment rate would fall, and pay would increase. I would also argue that we're gonna have to massively cut defense spending at some point. This could be done many different ways, such as pulling out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, etc. But it's gonna have to be done at some point, although it maybe difficult to do in the short run. That leaves us with what is currently being debated by Congress and the President. I'm actually pretty perplexed that they're prioritizing the debt issue without first remedying the economy. I think the debt is a very important issue, but I also don't believe it will be resolved until unemployment returns to more normal rates, unless we're refusing to acknowledge what leaders may already know - it ain't gonna get better for a long long time regardless of what the gov't does, so we might as well stop adding to the debt.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
What we really need is a law that says no member of congress shall be allowed to receive any money from any lobbying firm, business or individual who is a high-level employee (board member type guys) of any large company worth over "x" amount of dollars. Loopholes need to be closed, but social programs also need to be cut or seriously re-vamped. What REALLY needs to happen is to close behemoth and redundant federal offices that are better left to states or that sates already have.

Well, I'd definitely love to see some sort of reform aimed at the outright bribery we see going on in government. I'm not sure how we get that to happen, though.
As far as the debt goes, my opinion is that all the Congress can do in 2011 is set the budget for 2011 and 2012. Come 2013, it'll be a new Congress, and possibly a new President. There will be another new Congress in 2015, and another in 2017, plus a definite non-Obama President in the White House.
A little mentioned fact about this debt "crisis" is that all we need to do to balance the budget is for Congress to do nothing. No more Doc fixes, no more AMT patches, no more extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc. If we just let current law play out as it was written, the budget problem will no longer be an issue.
Even if congress doesn't do that, fixing our health care system has always been the real problem with the long-term budget. If we could get our medical costs down to just the level of the second-most expensive country in the world (Germany), then we'd be seeing big budget surpluses year after year. Maybe the HCR bill passed will do that once it's all in effect (in 2017!), but it's way too early to be putting those into the budget estimates. Maybe by 2020 we'll find out that we've actually put ourselves on track to be cheaper than Germany, and our budget picture will look really awesome.
I say we just focus on getting people back to work right now, and worry about the long-term debt in the long-term, especially since it might not actually be a problem in the long-term.