2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Miami Bob;421128]The guys on this board with over $10, 000, 000[/QUOTE]Oh sure. You are talking about Vietnamese Dong, right?

I am presenting facts. Supply-side economics really benefit the top 1%. The concentration of wealth over the last 25 years is shocking-is it evil? That may be your judgement. You generally post in a positive, thoughtful manner. I try to also do so.

These postings are in reaction to Mitt's new tax proposals. I wanted to be able to vote for Mitt six months ago. His history was that of a brilliant creative problem solver who made policy judgements based upon data, not ideology. Mitt has made his deals with the far right wing of the republican base. I am saddened because I am personally repulsed by the ideology of the far ultra right and personally believe that it will concentrate more wealth and maybe be positive looking out a few years, but it will be the beginning of the end of the this great noble experiment which is the USA. The economic classes will be further congealed and the the middle class and the educational system will be further eroded.

The dream and reality of social mobility-which made the USA great-will slowly be chocked off over the next few generations. The left wing has destroyed.

Argentina since 1948. The right wing is equally capable of destroying the USA-while creating an appearance of economic prosperity for a few years.

This is what the data shows me. Is that evil-I don't think good and bad belong in this discussion. What type of USA to you want to see in 50 years-one that leaves a school teacher to die in the street outside a hospital? A nation that out-sources labor to other countries and has a poor uneducated underclass. Making strictly economic decisions based on a business school case study model of analysis-this is your future.

Mitt in an interview while governor of mass was asked about the difference between governing a state and running a business. Mitt said that they were very different set of responsibilities as the objectives of government are much more complicated then running a business. I hope that he remembers this if elected when the political cronies and contributors ask for their favors. It is going to take lots of $$ with super packs polluting the airwaves with half-truths that appeal to voters' more base instincts if out to win at all costs

ALAMO--you are a very thoughtful intelligent guy. This is whether posting about the ladies or politics. If we are in BA at the same time, the first round is on me. I abore talking politics with almost all extreme right wingers because they hold their political beliefs with a religious fervor so that dialog is impossible. I listen to rush Limbaugh in the car because is is absurd and ridiculous--he makes me laugh. Rush can and does laugh at himself and sometimes even the implications of his point of view--they guy is an entertainer who is on radio to sell advertising

Unless you are here to work or you have a very economically comfortable retirement or you are an ex-patriot; it takes wealth and leasure time to spend substantial time in BA. The life style for folks with a bit of money invested securely outside of Argentina, is very nice in buenos aires.

If you are earning a living in Argentina and are dependent of there local policies to generate the money to pay your basic bills, it can be a nightmare and takes fortitude and "special know how" and good advice and trial and error.

[QUOTE=Hooky;421130]Oh sure. You are talking about Vietnamese Dong, right?[/QUOTE]Good one Hooky! Thats damn funny! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Come on you Republicans vote for him.

No rubbers, sounds good to me.

The 13th Century man, Chastiity belts again. They were like girdlies (Spelling, sorry I had a hard time getting my dick around them) in the 60s.

[QUOTE=Toymann;421090]So my designated wild-ass liberal monger. Did you watch the debate tonight. As a liberal wanting a second term for obomanation, who of the GOP candidates concern you the most? Furthermore, what do you think of Romney's 28% max tax, close the loopholes revenue neutral idea. Inquiring minds want to know. Monger on Dude. Toymann.[/QUOTE]I didn't watch the debate, not interested enough. I can get caught up quickly listening to the news the next day. Their "he's not a real conservative" attacks on each other are stupid, grasping at anything they can. But that's not surprising.

Just based on polling, Romney would pose the best challenge to Obama. His tax plan is better than a flat tax, which would be a huge giveaway to top income earners. But his all-bracket tax cut plan is still a typical Republican one, almost certain to help the rich get richer and increase economic inequality (just less so than a flat tax). It's typical Republican snake oil.

Compare a high vs. middle-income worker:

BEFORE ROMNEY PLAN
High income 500K - 175K (@35% Tax) = 325K (59%)
Middle income 50K - 12.5K (@25% Tax) = 37.5K (7%)
Government 175 + 12.5 = 187.5K (34%)

AFTER ROMNEY PLAN
High income 500K - 140K (@28% Tax) = 360K (65.5%)
Middle income 50K - 10K (@20% Tax) = 40K (7.3%)
Government 140 + 10 = 150K (27.2%)

There is some rounding off here, but basically Romney's plan benefits a high-income worker far more than a middle-income worker. It is upwards wealth redistribution.

Now Romney says he would pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions, but the devil is in the details, which Romney hasn't spelled out. If even part of that hits low and middle income workers, that could wipe out any gain they saw from their small tax cut. In order for Romney's plan not to increase economic inequality, the closed loopholes and deductions would have to almost entirely hit high incomes only. But Romney hasn't given us the details. In fact his plan also eliminates the estate tax (good for the rich) and requires $500 Billion of spending cuts (will likely hit everyone).

Romney's plan is Republican feel-good snake oil, designed to get the masses focused on the idea their taxes will go down. He doesn't want you to think too much about the other details, that will be needed to balance the budget. His plan is almost certain to worsen economic inequality in the US.

[QUOTE=Esten;421144]His plan is almost certain to worsen economic inequality in the US.[/QUOTE]Never understand this liberal point of view! Democracy and capitalism always works like this. WORK HARD, FOCUS, SACRIFICE, catch a break or two and guese what? You get ahead and make some money. Nothing more american than that ESTEN! There is nothing un-american about getting ahead and MAKING MONEY. Socialism works very differently. SIT ON YOUR ASS, COMPLAIN LOUDLY, and WAIT FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDOUT. There will always be "economic inequality" ESTEN. You make it sound like a "dirty word"!

There is absolutely nothing un-american about that! Sometimes I wonder if liberals really ever understood what made america the greatest country the world has ever seen so far. It's very cool when an immigrant can land in the US, start washing dishes and then one day OWN THE REASURANT! Thats the american dream baby and many of us have lived it first hand. Economic inequality my ass. LIKE WHO CARES! My dos centavos. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;421145]WORK HARD, FOCUS, SACRIFICE, catch a break or two and guese what? You get ahead and make some money. Nothing more american than that ESTEN! There is nothing un-american about getting ahead and MAKING MONEY.[/QUOTE]Agreed! Those are American values. Liberals support them just as Conservatives do. Raising taxes on higher incomes does not negate those values. There is still plenty of reward for people that work for it.

Guess what Toymann, in a democracy the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Most people support higher taxes on the wealthy as part of an approach to balancing budgets and funding programs people want. That includes safety nets for the jobless, poor and disabled. Apparently to folks like you, all those people are lazy, and any support of safety nets equates with supporting laziness and government dependancy.

Once again, we see conservatives recycling their stereotypes. All that does is demonstrate how shallow their analysis really is.

[QUOTE=Esten;421147]jobless, poor and disabled. .[/QUOTE]Disabled? Give me a break dude. Our discussion had nothing to do with the disabled. There are currently loads of programs for the disabled. Kinda of using a pretty extreme, out of context example. Don't ya think? As far as taxation goes. Let me follow your logic. Today, the 85% that pay only 15% of the country's taxes would like the 15% that pay 85% of the taxes to PAY MORE! Of course they would Esten. When did that EVER go out of style. You could have asked those americans that question for the past 100 years and the answer would always have been YES! What a shocker! Those that have not have always wanted those that have to GIVE THEM A FREE HANDOUT. This is nothing new Esten. My point is soley that this type of attitude is totally un-american. Obama's class warefare approach was always going to be appealing to most of those that depend on government handouts or are looking for a free lunch. Nothing shocking about that dude and hardly representative of americans, today or 50 years ago. Happy Mongering On. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;421148]As far as taxation goes. Let me follow your logic. Today, the 85% that pay only 15% of the country's taxes would like the 15% that pay 85% of the taxes to PAY MORE! Of course they would Esten. When did that EVER go out of style.[/QUOTE]Don't feel sorry for the top few % who pay most of the taxes. They also make most of all income and accumulate most of all wealth. In fact this is the only group who has seen their wealth grow significantly in recent decades. Everybody else has eaked out meager gains, is flat, or has lost ground. Your cherished free-market capitalism is increasingly benefitting only a small group. How did you get suckered into sympathizing for them?

Your argument is also flawed as to who wants who to pay what. Some people in the 85% don't want the wealthy to pay more taxes. More importantly, many people [u]in the 15%[/u] want the 15% [u](themselves)[/u] to pay more. So it's not as simple as one group wanting another group to pay more.

Millionaire Investor Calls for Higher Taxes on the Rich
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/millionaire-investor-calls-higher-taxes-rich-145808200.html[/url]

[QUOTE]"People in the top 1 percent are paying historically low tax rates," he says."That's simply an unsustainable way to run a capitalistic society."

Hanauer admits he paid an 11 percent tax rate on an eight-figure income in 2010. He's one of several millionaires speaking out against what he feels is an outdated system that disproportionately benefits the rich at the country's. And the middle class's. Expense.[/QUOTE]This article has a lot of good information. I like his quote at the end :

"If it was true that the rich and business were job creators, we'd be drowning in jobs today."

There are many wealthy people who feel the same way as this guy. Why do you think that is? To borrow some Republican rhetoric, do you think they want to "punish" themselves? Maybe, just maybe, they have taken a hard look at the system and concluded it does a poor job of sharing the prosperity it creates.

The problem is not rich people. The problem is rigid ideology.

[QUOTE=Esten; 421160]Don't feel sorry for the top few % who pay most of the taxes. They also make most of all income and accumulate most of all wealth. In fact this is the only group who has seen their wealth grow significantly in recent decades. Everybody else has eaked out meager gains, is flat, or has lost ground. Your cherished free-market capitalism is increasingly benefitting only a small group. How did you get suckered into sympathizing for them?

Your argument is also flawed as to who wants who to pay what. Some people in the 85% don't want the wealthy to pay more taxes. More importantly, many people [u]in the 15%[/u] Want the 15% [u] (themselves) [/u] To pay more. So it's not as simple as one group wanting another group to pay more.

Millionaire Investor Calls for Higher Taxes on the Rich.

[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/millionaire-investor-calls-higher-taxes-rich-145808200.html[/url]

This article has a lot of good information. I like his quote at the end :

"If it was true that the rich and business were job creators, we'd be drowning in jobs today."

There are many wealthy people who feel the same way as this guy. Why do you think that is? To borrow some Republican rhetoric, do you think they want to "punish" themselves? Maybe, just maybe, they have taken a hard look at the system and concluded it does a poor job of sharing the prosperity it creates.

The problem is not rich people. The problem is rigid ideology.[/QUOTE]We could all find anyone to quote to validate our own positions. If you spent as much time on positive things in your life, you would be much better off.

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15[/url]

The actual class war fare has been the top 1% vs the other 99. The top 5% have made progress since the time of reagan, but nothing compared to the massive redistribution of wealth and income to the top one. Take a look at some of the other charts. Yes, there are individuals who have done well, but the charts and statistics deal with the nation as a whole. There aren't too many folks without some form of financial success who can regularly get to miami and then fly 9 hours south.

Google" redistirbution of wealth USA" the republicans are 100% correct that the wealthiest people pay almost all of the taxes-look at these charts and it will make sense. The purchasing power of the middle class has decreased and the net wealth of the wealthiest 1% has increased on a near parabolic curve.

It is supply side economics that has done this: what is best for the most wealthy is best for the USA-the benefits will trickle-down to the middle class. Guess what, it hasn't tricked down past the top 10% at all and the top 1% have received almost all of the gain. This is factual, not ideology. This is factual not that it sounds nice nor fits in with your world view. The real nut of the argument is: if you can't grab you piece of pie: fuck you and drop dead because I've got mine and don't want to share.

Maybe I should move to france-they have a better health care system, longer life expectancy and maybe a generally better quality of life. The french once believed in the divine right of kings, but stopped thinking that way a few hundred years ago. I am proud to be an american but embarrassed by the greed and extreme egocentric approach of many of my brothers and their view of the mutual rights and obligations that flow back and forth between the members of society.

If the gangs in LA had the same philosophy they would take a trip out to the suburbs with AK47's and kill all the security personnel and start pulling gold out of people's mouths because they had the power to do it. The pimps-no I mean political leaders.now are selling this supply side bull shit have facilitated the raping of the USA middle class- which is diminishing. Since 1983. What happened to the trillions of dollars that disappeared in the last financial unpleasantness-it wasn't vaporized?

I am a capitalist within the meaning of the term in the modern world. All modern economies of first world countries blend forms of capitalism with socialist type programs. George HW Bush called supply-side economics voodoo economics-I agree with him. If the distribution of wealth fell back to where is was when "W" took over the top 1% have still made out like bandits in the class warfare they have perpetrated since 1983.

PLEASE look at the data. I am pleased if many of the readers of this forum consider me a dumb shit-that is an honor within the context in which it is said. I usually walk away from political discussions on this forum because the level of discourse is vile name calling with a minimum amount of actual thought process. Eg Obama's mother is a working girl. Why? Because any white woman who would sleep with a black man in the 1950's is a working girl. This type of discussion is repulsive to me. It goes against whatever makes me a human being living in a modern world. Yes, there are people who think like that, but I don't want to discuss politics with them. I may share other things in common with them and should avoid political discourse.

I am going to stop political posting again. The last few months are the first times in 5 years or so. I don't feel the need to say anything else. Flame away-I don't burn too easily and I'll likely never look at this thread again. I haven't looked at the other political thread in many years.

I was hoping to have a choice rather than voting for Obama again. I don't see any choice that isn't worse than Obama out there in the republican primaries. Mitt in detroit talked about how right the trees are because what else could he say-days before he had explained how he would have let GM fail. Why would any industrial worker ever want to vote for him. Oh the lakes are so beautiful. Maybe he is embarrassed at what he has to say to obtain the republican nomination and can't look the industrial heartland straight in the eye.

I'd rather come to ap to chat about stuff relevant to my frequent visits to Argentina. The truth is that I visit Argentina because I like argentines and Argentina and the few ex-patriot and frequent visitors that I have come to know and call friends. AP as a fund of political knowledge or discourse is absurd and a waste of bandwidth. I miss WW.

[QUOTE=Texas Tornado;421161]We could all find anyone to quote to validate our own positions. If you spent as much time on positive things in your life, you would be much better off.[/QUOTE]I subscribe to your "pollyanna" theory wholeheartedly, but I also had dedicated parents, and my peer group all went on to college. I learned and developed good working ethics.

Now imagine, if you came from a broken family, and did not possess the security and self esteem of a secured childhood. I could go on and on, but you would say, life is tough, and nobody owes you a living. Why can't they set it up where if you are going to take welfare money, you are obligated to do so something and contribute to society. Just for example, the parks and streets in many areas are being neglected due to lack of municipal and state funds.

My apologies for another idiotic rant.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 421165]Just for example, the parks and streets in many areas are being neglected due to lack of municipal and state funds.

My apologies for another idiotic rant.[/QUOTE]Simple answer dude. Is the state you live in running a defecit or surplus. Guesing it's a deficit! WOW. What a surprise! You mean the "free lunch" isn't pruning the trees. Nothing comes for free dude. Suggest you elect state officials that start running your state like a business. You only get what you can afford in this world. The piper always needs to be paid. Stop whining and start becoming part of the solution. My state ran a 450 million dollar surplus this year and "SURPRISE", all the trees are pruned and we have killer social services for the poor, drug addicted, handycapped, etc (and guese what. NO STATE INCOME TAXES). First ya have to make the money and THEN YOU GET TO SPEND IT. This is a concept that liberals will just sadly never understand. Such a shame really. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Miami Bob;421163]Maybe I should move to france-they have a better health care system, longer life expectancy and maybe a generally better quality of life.[/QUOTE]Just be real brother. A registered democrat like yourself just can't bring himself to vote for anyone but Obomanation. It's referred to in clinical circles as a "self-fulfilled prophecy". It's all good. We still love ya! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. I am guessing its been quite some time since you've been to France Bobby. LMAO