Above all, please remember it's nothing personal, just the future of our country on the line.

It's not Kenyan, it's "Kenyawaiian". Because Obama's papa was Kenyan, and he (the son) was born in Hawaii. Allegedly.

No one has the time or energy to read--much less list--all the failures of the corrupt regime presently in power, so settle for a single buzz word or two that summarizes the opposition.

I cannot care about the fine tuning between definitions of socialism, marxism and communism, they're all dung from different animals.

Suspend thinking of me (or Blanky) as your idealogical frenemies for a moment and try to see us instead as peeps concerned about fidelity to the Constitution and positive results. I don't give a sh1t about what the Obama regime or liberals in general say they want to do, or claim will happen, my concern is what are the REAL results of following liberal policies such as raising taxes on the wealthy (which then trickle down to us in the form of higher prices and less employment), non-stop government spending of money we don't have and onerous, business-killing regulations.

If this socialist claptrap worked, Europe would have less than permanent double-digit unemployment and less than 4 countries on the verge of economic collapse.

I really don't think you want to go to the tale of the tape (facts-n-sh1t) because from Roosevelt onward, federal tyranny has increased exponentially with the size of the welfare state.

If you want me to stop 'accusing' Obama of being a screw-up, tell him to stop jumping off the same cliff of tried-n-failed socialist baloney with styrofoam wings, then blaming Republicans instead of gravity when he plummets.

I don't say it enough: I wish the left could prove me wrong with examples of success instead of promises that never arrive.





>> ^volumptuous:

What's your point GSF?
Should we learn from people like Cafferty (a know-nothing millionaire pundit with absolutely zero focus on monetary policy or economics) and Ron Paul (a devout racist and sexist dominionist who hates our democracy and would like nothing more than to transfer our dwindling wealth all the way upward) and Blankfist (who's a film maker who identifies strictly to Ayn Randian/Paulian methods of extreme wealth inequality) and Quantum (who can't even get his soshulism/marxism right?) ?
OR
Should we listen to pretty much every single economist on the planet who tells us exactly the opposite of these people?
That's really up to you. But personally, arguing with the likes of these people is the same as arguing against a witch doctor in Africa who performs ritual genital mutilations for religious purposes. There's absolutely no way that person will ever think "oh, ya know you're right. maybe women should keep their clitorises and all this religious stuff is nonsense".
No, it's never going to happen, ever. But it doesn't matter. These videos get at most 2-5 upvotes, and Blanky has to keep promoting his own videos because the rest of the planet doesn't buy into this type of garbage.
So, open your mouth and eat my vomit

Come on guys..."trickle down" that's all bobknigghter is trying to say.

I've heard the argument that a rich person thinks they can create far more wealth with those tax dollars themselves than just handing it over to the government, who then of course just hands it out to those the rich would cross the street to avoid.

I think the trickle down part is when the poor get to watch the rich on TV enjoying themselves, so the poor have something to dream about working towards.

And they say the wealth will trickle down.

And meanwhile, in true trickle down fashion, all this is swelling my vote account!

*Promote
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^A most excellent lesson in capitalism. If you don't have the best product, then buy out your competitors.

Not so much buying out the competitors as I'm investing in promotions to give higher visibility to my product. In this case, my comment is the product. But you're on the right track. Is it the best product in terms of quality of content? Not by a long shot. Is it the best in terms of votes? It's getting there. Long live democracy!

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here, or being overly layman about it but I see a difference between government borne stimulus and business borne stimulus.

In times like these the government may try stimulus or austerity but both have benefits and drawbacks that (in a general sense) cancel themselves out. The money that has to go somewhere, has to come from somewhere.

Corporation borne stimulus is different; the money doesn't always have to come from anywhere - the rich already have it. Look at Apple's $76 billion stockpile for example. Or the billions of dollars of banker bonuses when everyone else was getting screwed.

What we need is a culture shift; where the rich and the system value themselves and their businesses not on the amount of money they have; but instead on how many people they employ and how much they pay them.

People talk about the fallacy of trickle down economics and this is the cause of why it can't work. A business looks at it's bottom line and it's only goal is to increase it. You can only do this by increasing sales and/or reducing operating costs.

Reducing operating costs is the business version of austerity, and it's like being a vampire sucking the shit out of everyone who ever did you a favour. Sure your bottom line was protected, but a thousand people who made you good money are thrown out on the street. Your sales go down because nobody has any money, so you go ahead and reduce operating costs again; into a futile spiral chasing after impossible growth.

Ironically people lobby for reduced taxation of the rich to stimulate trickle down economics; but if you actually did the opposite and (for example) imposed a 100% tax over a certain earnings threshold THEN you'd have trickle down as businesses are forced to invest internally to avoid taxation. Increasing, not reducing taxes on the rich forces them to spend their fucking money instead of withhold it from the economy.

It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out.

Every time taxes are cut, it results in an increase in tax revenues because it increases personal wealth, which creates more tax payers, and establishes an environment that gives the private sector confidence. Carter’s 70% top marginal tax rates and leftist liberal policies brought the nation to fiscal collapse. Buffett has it 100% backwards. Taxes cut. Tax revenues up. It works every time. That’s why even OBAMA didn’t want to end the Bush tax cuts – because he himself admitted it would hurt the economy in December 2010. Neolibs like to ignore that particular bit of Obama rhetoric - but I do not forget such things...

Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

The problem is not that there isn’t a bigger tax category at the top. We’ve had a rate as high as 94% back in 1944. It was 70% under Carter. The problem is a labyrinthine tax code that people can game by moving money & assets around. We just need to simplify the code to eliminate the exemptions for businesses and the ‘money’ rich. There’s no need for a new, higher top marginal tax rate. The ‘rich’ already pay the bulk of our taxes.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity.

No. Clinton was nothing a serviceable – but barnacle-covered – rudder. He didn’t screw up what was already going well. That isn’t great praise, but it still makes him a better CiC than Bush2 or Obama. Bush1 was the guy that raised the taxes. Clinton merely coasted along on the dot-com bubble. Oh, and also the Republican “Contact with America” was forced down Clinton’s throat. And he had a few impeachable offenses that prevented him from pushing more spending. The GOP cut spending, which created an environment friendly for the business community to create prosperity. You can thank fiscal conservatives for the 90s and early 00s – not Clinton.

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

Yes – cutting big-government social spending in favor of small-government freedom-oriented systems is seen as unpleasant, but it is the right thing to do.

Dude, nobody in this thread is advocating a tax rate of 80% … Why is a moderate increase on tax rates paramount to pure socialism and gov't control on the economy?

I wryly notice that the actual QUESTION I posed remains stubbornly ignored. What would happen IF (!IF!) the tax rate at the top went to 70% ala Carter? Or 94% ala Roosevelt? Would the problems be solved? I think even the most dyed-in-the-wool neolib knows deep down in their reluctant-to-admit souls that high top marginal tax rates do not solve anything. Even a 100% tax rate does not come within 16.9 trillion (heh) miles of the real problem. Every thin dime of the new taxes would just vanish into a black hole, and the debt/deficit would not be touched except in name. We have precedence for this conclusion.

Tax hikes take place immediately, but the spending cuts are always pushed 10 years into the future where they disappear. Our tax rates are already high enough. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. The issue is the huge amount of SPENDING taking place.

I hope this simple explanation helps all the neolibs out… Our current debt is 16.9 trillion dollars.

1. A simple federal budget freeze on spending to current 2011 levels would cut our debt by 10 trillion in 10 years.
2. Increasing the top marginal tax rate to 100% would cut the debt by 2 trillion in 10 years

Simple freeze? 10 trillion. A ridiculous 100% tax rate? Only 2 trillion. Where does that tell you the real problem lies? Fussing with tax rates at the top is nothing but rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The iceberg is spending.

Warren Buffet is saying that people who make more than a $1000K a year need to pay more than 15%. He advocates returning to the Clinton tax rates. And he thinks that job creation occurs when the rich are taxed and the middle class is supported by a lower tax rate.

You should read his NY Times article. It is really easy to fall into the trap of believe the philosophy of trickle down economics, but as Warren says the facts have never born this out. The truth is the economy grows more when the middle class (incomes less than $500K) are taxed at a lower rate than the upper class (greater than $500K). Buffet believes that there should be two or three more levels to the tax code and that capital gains taxes should be graduated to appropriately tax the super rich who make money with money.

Like him or not, Clinton's economic policies navigated our country to tremendous economic prosperity. We need to tax the rich. It is our only hope along with leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Two wars were never economically sustainable. Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something unpleasant.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Why is it morally justified to impose a higher tax rate on the more highly paid? I'm already paying twenty people's worth.. Why should it be more?

One of the greatest modern myths is that Republicans are fiscally conservative and that Democrats are the wastrels.

Our debt ballooned under the Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing unabated through the two Bush presidencies largely due to a maniacal thirst for war and trickle down (voodoo) economics.

>> ^VoodooV:

What planet are you from Banshee? Republicans make false accusations about the health care reforms having death panels....now you're advocating them?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Republicans have no fucking clue what they're for. The only thing they know is that they'll take the opposite stance of whatever a Democrat wants.
I'm waiting for Obama to openly support trickle down economics just so I can watch the Reps head explode.


How can you not understand what I'm saying? Demand for health care is unlimited. Every person has to decide how much money they want to sock away for a future problem afflicting them. It is a balance between quality of life and length of life. People make those kinds of decisions already with the quantity of children they have. Each child causes an additional divide from the same pot. But you can't make those kinds of decisions with OTHER people's money, because you will take everything and more. Eventually, it gets to the point where no one wants to produce in such amounts that would reduce their benefit relative to their burden. And if the majority are consuming more than they're producing, where do the funds come from to consume in the first place? Net destruction ends in nothingness, a currency so worthless you can scarcely afford anything. But hey, it works for a while.

Payroll taxes for Medicare and SS go straight into the general fund and the government annually spends in excess of the fund by borrowing at interest. The interest payments alone are becoming massive burdens.

What planet are you from Banshee? Republicans make false accusations about the health care reforms having death panels....now you're advocating them?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Republicans have no fucking clue what they're for. The only thing they know is that they'll take the opposite stance of whatever a Democrat wants.

I'm waiting for Obama to openly support trickle down economics just so I can watch the Reps head explode.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^rottenseed:
"like a boss"? "not a single fuck was given"? Come on, those trickle-down net colloquialisms don't even apply.

You look at the security guards face at 0:54, and you tell me if he gives a fuck.
no, no sir, he does not.

Well it's obviously "Giving a fuck - like a boss". Because Yes he is doing what he's doing like a boss. But no, he is indeed giving at least one fuck otherwise he would just stand there and let the banana have his fuck all the way - like a banana.

>> ^rottenseed:

"like a boss"? "not a single fuck was given"? Come on, those trickle-down net colloquialisms don't even apply.


You look at the security guards face at 0:54, and you tell me if he gives a fuck.

no, no sir, he does not.

"like a boss"? "not a single fuck was given"? Come on, those trickle-down net colloquialisms don't even apply.

Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

Historically there appears to be more misery when taxocrats run the show than repubs. Why, what's stopping His Earness from announcing he loves socialism and implementing a carbon copy of the European model (have you see Greece lately)?

Not that I have much stake in defending them, but the wealthy pay the most taxes in America, despite the cheaters, that's fact. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax but suck up plenty of "free" goodies.

There's a moral basis for making others pay a fair share of taxes, but not the lion's share.



>> ^RFlagg:

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...