>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Those who suspect Obama isn't a naturally born citizen by a mile. There's overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Providing a birth certificate won't easily end all speculation. If birthers won't accept the overwhelming facts that prove he was already out there, another piece of paper won't make one ounce of difference. Bill freakin' O'Reilly even dismisses birthers' claims. If this one simple fact can't be accepted by someone, how could you ever have a meaningful debate with them about anything?!

Look, we can debate economic theory all day, but the fact that Trump and other birthers get traction with this crap is absolute idiocy, and points to the acidic partisanship in this country. I used to joke that I bet that if a person from either the left or right said 1+1=2, the other would swear it didn't. I thought I was being humorously hyperbolic. It's not a joke anymore. That's what exactly is happening here. It's pathetic.

And your platitudes about tax policy don't help either. You're indicting progressive taxation and a basic social safety net. Both have been in place at a basic level since the New Deal, and you're claiming that can't work?! It most certainly can if done right. The US has been the most economically successful nation on earth for the majority of that time. It's basic historical fact you're arguing against to make an ideological point.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Oh yeah. America's economy is in the toilet because half of it is composed of worthless, parasitic bottom feeders 'slurping up entitlements'.

It couldn't be because the biggest corporations are paying less than zero income tax while they outsource jobs overseas, or that Wall Street scammed millions of people out of their retirement funds and homes, or that the Republican party has been puppets of the oil and military industrial complex for decades and has squandered billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives to 'make the world a more democratic (read pro-American business) place'.

No, it's definitely the fault of the poor.

Who is crazier:

Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,

or

those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.

Then you must know nearly HALF of all Americans pay NO federal income tax. Hmmm...I notice that same HALF shows no restraint on slurping up entitlements and welfare social services. You're in trouble when the tick is as big as the dog.

Yeah, borrow-n-spend isn't much better than tax-n-spend, but take a step back and note what all this money is being spent on. Hint: it's not "racism".





>> ^bareboards2:

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.
I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.
Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?
Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.
Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.
Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.
Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.

I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.

Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?

Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.

Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.

Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.

Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.


>> ^quantumushroom:

If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

>> ^gorillaman:

Here we are with our downvotes and promote powers, an elite of an elite, privileged members of the internet class, which is itself already practically superhuman, talking about our democratic website? LOL.

I'm noticing that you aren't really responding to my argument, but instead are trying to declare Videosift...what? An oligarchy? An Aristocracy? Totally devoid of any wisdom of crowds?

I've never really seen downvotes make a difference when it comes to getting on the Top 15. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I saw a video get more than 3 downvotes.

All promote and quality do is increase exposure. They can make a difference between a video "sifting" instead of going to pqueue, and it can pad the number of votes it gets after it hits the Top 15, but I doubt you could get, say, a video of silent blackness into the top 15 purely with quality and promote.

>> ^gorillaman:
The misconception I see in your posts is this arbitrary distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. The average man on the street is as guilty today as the plutocrat with his snout in the trough, because if their positions were reversed they'd each behave in the same way.

It's not a misconception, it's that I disagree with your assertion. I doubt reversal would make no difference. In any case, my aim isn't to "reverse" their positions, but to equalize them.

>> ^gorillaman:
Accountability to 'the people' is hardly a check on corruption if the people themselves are corrupt.

The theory is, if people vote for politician A, and A does things that fuck them over, they can vote for another politician next time. To use the favorite conservative example, you can't raise taxes with impunity, because if people don't think it's justified, they'll vote you out. Get rid of the vote, and those eeevil government bureaucrats can raise taxes, and spend all of it on palaces for themselves instead of healthcare. The only "accountability" valve then comes in terms of an armed rebellion.

You're vaguely alluding to a tyranny of the majority issue, but in practice every tyranny I can think of has been a "tyranny of the elite".

>> ^gorillaman:
There's a linguistic issue here as well. Over time 'democracy' has become perversely synonymous with 'freedom'. There's an essential difference between taking power away and taking freedom away. Power here means the power to enforce ones will over others, freedom is the freedom from the power of others. Removing power from the majority will actually increase their freedom.

Again, it's not a linguistic issue, it's that you disagree with other people's feelings about democracy. Maybe that's justified, maybe it's not, but it's not that people don't understand what the words mean.

As for freedom vs. power, it's a slippery thing. I'd say they're synonymous in this context in a lot of ways.

Do I have the ability to own a house because I'm "free" to do so, or because I have the power that comes from having the talents to build a decent career for myself? Or am I "free" to have land like this because the government is ensuring that my property rights will be respected? Or am I somehow a slave to the majority because I pay taxes to a democratic government?

>> ^gorillaman:
Look at the progress of this thread. I don't see much ideological territory left to the democrats, squeezed as you are from both sides. While dft lectures blanarchist on the need for a government to protect free men from one another, you want to turn around and give those same men a stake in that same government with all its might and authority. Even on the site of your last stand - the desperate, impossible compromise of constitution, you admit to massive deception and malfeasance and even in the strongest and best designed democratic state an apparently irredeemable collapse. With all this you still believe democracy is moral? It amounts to a kind of political stockholm syndrome.


For all the proclamations of victory, I notice that the vast majority of that paragraph refers to things people other than me have said. I haven't used the word "constitution" until just now, for example.

I do think the US's implementation of democracy is headed for a collapse. Not because people left to their own devices slit their own throats (which you seem to think is inevitable), but instead because a wealthy elite has effectively subverted the mechanics of democracy.

So you say to me, as the elite stands over our wounded democracy, choking the last life out of it, that this is proof that the corruption and stupidity of the people has finally led to democracy's demise, and demand that we empower the elite to rule over us.

That's Stockholm syndrome.

Hell, you have yet to even try to explain what it is you're really suggesting, beyond that you want Superman and the Justice League to come and save us from ourselves. Not only that, you want them to totally ignore what we might say about their edicts, lest our filthy corruptness infect them.

>> ^quantumushroom:
It's appalling this sincere fellow, who seemingly understands the struggles of the middle class and the dignity of work, has NO CLUE that higher taxes, more onerous regulations and the non-stop economic uncertainty created by his boss are major contributors toward the destruction of jobs.


Ahahahaha, yes, because the economy did SO WELL under the don't tax and spend spend spend Republicans you cheerlead.

^ God damn, you're a lying piece of shit.

Reagan more than tripled the deficit:

"The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[18] due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits...."
(source)

"Technically, the GOP only controlled the Senate and the White House after the 1980 election, but de facto, they had an alliance with the Boll Weevil House Democrats, led by then-Democrat Phil Gramm, who rammed through tax and spending cuts in alliance with the GOP. Only with the 1982 election did real Democrats gain enough seats to regain operational control of the House. In response to that loss of control by the GOP-Boll Weevil alliance, Phil Gramm resigned from Congress in 1983 and became a Republican, running for Congress, then the Senate.
(source)

You're an evil little shit, whoever you are, and I hope you get what's coming to you.

>> ^robdot:
my friends. this guy is hopelessly out of touch. hes living in the 1920;s or something. if the usa was the size of texas maybe we could live the way he proposes, but we are 300 million strong. we must feed and protect 300 million people. we need desease control. emergency management. protection of our food supply.
we can not survive.literally,without the fda cdc fema etc. also without a progressive income tax the wealth would quickly be in the hands of a small percentage of the population. no matter what anyone says our tax system helps to ..spread the wealth. fair tax, flat tax. sales tax. etc. are regressive. the more you make the less you pay in taxes. thats why we dont do that. this guy is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now. hes completely lost.


Um, your country survived for more than half it's existence without those services. You also survived without the income tax until 1913! Also, an unapportioned tax on income is actually unconstitutional.

Also, regarding the income tax spreading the wealth around, perhaps some numbers might convince you otherwise:


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. - Source

Ron Paul is on the side of individuals making decisions for themselves. The CDC, FDA and FEMA don't feed 300 million people, individuals work and receive money that they buy food with. The government does not contribute at all, except taking a percentage of that individuals earnings in tax and spending it on government programs.


>> ^chilaxe:
Paul's and Schiff's prediction of the end of civilization as we know it unless we all become fans of freshwater economics doesn't look very likely. They better hope for something like a meteor strike to help bring civilization down, because it's a drain on your credibility if your 100% certainty predictions don't pan out.


In comparison with the people who are actually in control of the economy, Schiff and Paul have been right 100% of the time. If anyone's credibility should be questioned, it should be Bernanke and Geithner.

Senator Obama is incapable of taking just one side of any issue except for raising taxes and spending OPM; he's smart keep it zipped and stick to his 90-minute workouts and body waxins'.

Cut off aid to Israel? Kill the only civilized and sane country in the Middle East?

Palestinians aren't even a real people, nation or unique culture, they're Arab immigrants.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222

Israel wants peace. Too bad most of the rest of the Mideast (and UN turd world thugs) doesn't.

Bush fked up by approving of the bailouts of criminals, by criminals, for criminals.

Now Obama and Friends will match that insanity with tax-and-spend "investments". The new spending schemes won't work, unless extending the recession and increasing government dependency are the real goals.

Obama is dead wrong about the Constitution. It is a document designed to LIMIT government power but he considers it "flawed" because it doesn't give government sweeping powers to redistribute wealth.

The New American Order is the real Hydra.

Did I mention Jesus was a communist?

Barack Obama can harness this to get the religious right behind some european-style economic reforms.

Maybe the point of her comment is that in order to pay for such a bill ($700B), we have to do it with debt. We already have a large debt. The only reason to take on more debt would be to preserves jobs and growth, the lifeblood of the economy. Her words are unclear, but the point is sound. By no means is this bill as currently shot down guaranteed to make the taxpayers money, but that is not a reason not to do the bill. It should be done, but it should be done in such a way to provide incentives for economic growth (taxes and jobs very relevant when talking about growth). Anyone who wants to cherry-pick this as an opportunity to slander Palin should stick to attacking her on style and polish, not substance.

Obama's policies are nightmarish, particularly as they relate to the economy. The only way for this country to resurrect itself is through long-term growth, and tax and spend is the exact opposite way to go. If you care about your job and think you might barely be holding onto it right now, just wait until Obama raises taxes, someone please explain to me how THAT is going to stimulate the economy (it will not, and it will hurt the dollar as well). There is no current worse investor than the government, look no further than Fannie and Freddie. We need more disciplined spending, not more spending.

Maybe the point of her comment is that in order to pay for such a bill ($700B), we have to do it with debt. We already have a large debt. The only reason to take on more debt would be to preserves jobs and growth, the lifeblood of the economy. Her words are unclear, but the point is sound. By no means is this bill as currently shot down guaranteed to make the taxpayers money, but that is not a reason not to do the bill. It should be done, but it should be done in such a way to provide incentives for economic growth (taxes and jobs very relevant when talking about growth). Anyone who wants to cherry-pick this as an opportunity to slander Palin should stick to attacking her on style and polish, not substance.

Obama's policies are nightmarish, particularly as they relate to the economy. The only way for this country to resurrect itself is through long-term growth, and tax and spend is the exact opposite way to go. If you care about your job and think you might barely be holding onto it right now, just wait until Obama raises taxes, someone please explain to me how THAT is going to stimulate the economy. There is no current worse investor than the government, look no further than Fannie and Freddie.

States and local governments can run schools without any federal help, and they did in the past. Most public schools get only a small percentage of their funding from the federal government. Local boards of education are elected locally without much interference by the federal government.

As soon as any school takes so much as a penny from the federal mafia, they are forced to play by the feds' rules. And even if they don't, they are weighted down by edicts from on high, including the NCLB baloney. Local schools boards with electable positions? Sounds like more of the same-o. Compulsory state education means no ingenuity or merit for finding better ways to teach and learn; making sure everyone is doing the exact same thing even when it doesn't work. Schools should be like restaurants...with many trying to make it and the most successful doing so by offering something of measurable quality.

Show me competitive private services that can deliver your letters anywhere in the USA for 41 cents and I'll support your plan to scrap the USPS. There's nothing preventing Fedex and UPS from trying that right now, except that they can't do it that cheap.

Actually, the post office monopoly prevents FedEx and UPS from delivering any letter-sized envelope for the present rate or less; one of postal inspectors' major tasks is to make sure their monopoly is protected by spying on UPS and FedEx. You wouldn't have to disband the post office, just by ridding its artificial barrier I think it would die out on its own.

Your argument against the infrastructure and such has some merit, I'm sure it was used when FedEx got started. Yet here they are, competing with one of the world's largest government boondoggles. FedEx and UPS either turn a profit or die. The USPS, without any incentive to do better, loses BILLIONS of dollars every year. They would not last a year without the law.

This is the same congress that pays a chaplain tens of thousands of dollars a year to lead a prayer every time Congress is called in to session. This is the same congress that almost unanimously passed a condemnation of Newdow's legal attempt to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version (the Pledge didn't say "under God" before 1954). This is the same congress that funds Bush's OFBCI. The supreme court has been very clear that students can pray by themselves as much as they want on their own lunch break but official prayer-times when taxpayer-funded teachers entice students to pray are unconstitutional.

And these are things that truly offend you and depreciate the quality of your life? Freedom FROM religion is a gross distortion of the Founders' intent. Tyranny of the minority. I hate to say it like this, but atheism does not represent something "better" than religion. It doesn't offer any moral foundation or transmit societal values. That's why IMAO, there's never been a successful majority atheist society (I'm aware of). I write this as a former atheist. I know what is to be gained by being free of superstition, but I also know society is extremely fragile, and will die without its delusions. If atheists succeed in "getting rid" of religion, life will be worse for them as well.

We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.

Those aren't even mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ was a socialist. Jesus Christ gave all kinds of handouts to the poor and asked something in return. He asked people to give all they could to the church and the poor. That's a taxing-and-spending entitlement system. Huckabee, the Christian fundamentalist, was also in agreement with the Democrats on most economic issues. Iran, which is officially a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah, also heavily subsidizes the cost of food, which you might call Socialist.

Jesus gave handouts but did not take them from others by force beforehand. He asked people to give, but did not threaten or curse them for not doing so. Most importantly, Jesus did not ever say that government's role is providing the means to help the poor.

Despite its failures due to humans being imperfect, (moderately regulated) free market capitalism has done more to lift the poor out of poverty than any other system. And I'm speaking from near the bottom of the ladder, my friend. I know times is tight for you too right now...

In reply to this comment by jwray: