2012 Elections in the USA

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=Esten; 421089]Hey Toymann that's cool. If you think that article implies Obama created those jobs (even though it does NOT claim this) , fair enough for you to point out some of those jobs were probably set in motion before Obama came along. If Bush had something to do with them, good for him, he did a few things right as I've said before. You guys should really stop calling him evil and saying everything was his fault.

The 'direction' of my post and that article, is to put the lie to the claim some Republicans are making that Obama is stifling oil & gas development. Jobs are increasing, rigs are increasing, production increasing. Those are the facts.

Now it was very interesting listening to Bill O'Reilly today. Recently he has had a rare, apolitical discussion of something, in this case what is causing the high price of gas. In fact he acknowledged production is up, and US demand is down due to the mild winter, so the high price contradicts the laws of supply and demand. Basically the take away was that the oil companies are exporting the oil, in turn reducing the US supply, driving the price up. If this is true, increasing production further (as Republicans want) is not necessarily the answer to driving the price back down. O'Reilly then goes on to suggest something surprising (from a conservative) : Obama could ask Congress to raise export taxes on oil companies, to encourage them to sell more oil in the US (thereby driving down price).

That's an idea worth discussion. Republicans won't likely get behind it though, given their earlier vigorous opposition to ending tax loopholes for Big Oil, and the ideological positions they have dug themselves into on taxes and 'government meddling' in the private market.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://screen.yahoo.com/crazystupidpolitics/[/url]

[quote=Ivestor's Business Daily][size=+1][b]5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama's Energy Speech[/size][/b]

Energy: The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.

Obama's main message to struggling motorists was: It's not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama's peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:

"We're focused on production."

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. Says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has "done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."

"The USA consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that "we can't drill our way to lower gas prices." The argument goes that since the USA supply is limited, it won't ever make a difference to world prices.


It's bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.

In fact, the USA has a mind-boggling 1. 4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to "fuel the present needs in the USA for around 250 years," according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.

"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."

Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

"We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."

Fact: Renewable energy simply won't play an important role in the country's energy picture anytime soon, accounting for just 13% of USA energy production by 2035, according to the EIA.

"There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices."

Fact: Obama could drive down oil prices right now simply by announcing a more aggressive effort to boost domestic supplies. When President Bush lifted a moratorium in 2008, oil prices immediately fell $9 a barrel.

Obama said in his speech that Americans aren't stupid. He's right about that, which is why most are giving his energy policy a thumbs down.[/QUOTE]This clown needs to go ASAP.

We have such a huge supply of natural gas and the prices are so low, that the gas producers are capping their wells. The natural gas the is loccated incidental to drilling for oil is being released and not captured. The techology is mature safe and readily available. The distrubution system is being built out with out any government incentives. The president says the USA is the saudi arabia of natural gas. It is also clean in term of green-house gas emmissions. The natural and near perfect solution.

The has been a bill pending every year to provvide tax credist for conversion to natural gas for larger commercial vehicles. Minor changes in the regulartory framework without a tax incentive would spend-up the conversation process and create jobs and lessen our dependence on imported oil.

Bboth the parties and all the candidates are sucking on "big oil's" tit and nothing can be done.

The natural gas industry is preparing the liquify USA's cheap natural gas and export it to europe and asia. Do some reading on westport energy's website and chaniere's site.

I may write in the name elmer fudd when I vote in the next election.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 421106]We have such a huge supply of natural gas and the prices are so low, that the gas producers are capping their wells. The natural gas the is loccated incidental to drilling for oil is being released and not captured. The techology is mature safe and readily available. The distrubution system is being built out with out any government incentives. The president says the USA is the saudi arabia of natural gas. It is also clean in term of green-house gas emmissions. The natural and near perfect solution.

The has been a bill pending every year to provvide tax credist for conversion to natural gas for larger commercial vehicles. Minor changes in the regulartory framework without a tax incentive would spend-up the conversation process and create jobs and lessen our dependence on imported oil.

Bboth the parties and all the candidates are sucking on "big oil's" tit and nothing can be done.

The natural gas industry is preparing the liquify USA's cheap natural gas and export it to europe and asia. Do some reading on westport energy's website and chaniere's site.

I may write in the name elmer fudd when I vote in the next election.[/QUOTE]As citizens and consumers, do we really have a choice? Yeah, peddle a bicycle. Yet, we have the propoganda machine that urges us to consume more, and to dig more. Profit (as in domination) is the controlling factor. Our lifestyles, even the lowliest of the middle class far exceeds 75% (?) of the world. Yeah, when we buy that 2nd or 3rd car, or when we buy just to buy, we have to question our culture or our lifestyle. But that would be telling people how to live, and that's just not America. The sad truth is that when we buy, most of us are not in control of what we buy or why we buy, we just like to think that we do.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;421112]The sad truth is that when we buy, most of us are not in control of what we buy or why we buy, we just like to think that we do.[/QUOTE]Totally lost me with that one BlackShirt, mind clarifying this point. Inquiring minds want to know. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Well, I was hoping that Newt would get the nomination, but it looks like Whiny Willard, baptizer extraordinaire will be able to buy it. So seeing that someone as stupid as Toymann (remember South Carolina?) is convinced that the Mormon will beat Obama: I am now taking the bet of the "man" who needs toys to back up his lack of testosterone, dimension and technique and has his head up his ass. Since I don't like to be seen with losers nor ugly individuals who can't spell, after Obama wins, the limp dick Toymann can give the Madaho's money I have won to Jackson and I'll pick it up from him. By the way Toymann, you have been blocked (by Jackson), so any future girlish insulting posts referring to whale watchers will not be seen by me. Maybe they will interest others, although I doubt it. So don't spend all your money on more toys or your fishing trips and make sure my Madaho's money (taking inflation into account let's call it an even 2000 pesos) is put aside for November.

Obviously if the Republicans get smart and don´t run Willard, the bet´s off.

[QUOTE=Toymann;421113]Totally lost me with that one BlackShirt, mind clarifying this point. Inquiring minds want to know. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Just walk around or look in the mirror. The kind of food Americans choose to consume is a prime example of my statement. Are Americans more healthy just because life expectancy is longer that say 50 years ago? Who is really in control when your kids throw a trantrum because you chose not to go to McDonalds? Or even when you choose to go voluntary. And the size of the servings, I will stop right here.

The Goldman Sacks partners may decide that it is worth $100, 000, 000. Or more to get rid of the Obama guy. Let's presume set up thru Litchenstin-which never signed the tax treaty with the USA- the boys/gals set-up 100 corporations hiding thru Panama and the channel islands to each donate money to a number of different super packs. They have lunch with a few of their friends and former partners to raise another $100, 000, 000.

Now the wall street robber barons plaster the tv with public relations info and commercials to sell whatever themes their market research suggests would influnce the moderates in the USA to vote for anyone other than Obama. The just buy the elections, the same way mcdonalds influences average good people to buy their unhealthy shit that passes for food. [sorry to those out there who love micky D's-it is a collection of unehalthy and minimally nuitritous, ok tasting stuff]

Or assume that the shoe is one the other foot: instead of goldman sacks, warren buffet and a group of super-rich democrat types and entertainment businss folks, put up their own half billion dollars to sell the american people their own brand of horse manure-they could elect fidel castro on a write-in campaign as burak is too moderate for them.

USA will become a super circus with these new powerful super packs-elections need fund raising reform of some type. The new super packs will provide even more power to the super wealthy-a club the requires hundreds of millions of dollars to belong.

OK-I have been reading about mitt's nw tax proposals-it's trickle down economics, which was called "voodoo economics" by mainstream republicans 20 years ago-what's good for the rich, is good for the poor as the new found wealth of the wealthy will trickle down.........

Is this just a bad joke. I grew up in another country, that loves to bash the US, but your statement is totally idiotic! I am virtually speechless (and that says something). Sorry I ever asked you to elaborate. Either you are totally arrogant to judge america based on your perceptions of fast food or meal portion size or just a ranting idiot. Sorry for engaging your initial post. Over and out! Where is WW when I need him. I'm guessing he is watching this thread and ROTFLHAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I was SHOCKED reading this:

[url]http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url]

The changes in distribution 1983 to almost today:

Distribution of wealth, USA, over time.

The concentration of wealth in the top 1% 1900 to 2010:-this from a business magazine, no lefty source here-look at the charts-radical concentration of wealth in th top 1% `1945 to 2010 increasing. During the reagan years and Bush II years-the boat has not been rising for evryone:

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4[/url]

My conclusions: rickle down economics are against the economic interests of at least 90% of the population, if not really 99%. I think that blackshirt makes a valid point all thought the way he makes it is not too clear. You can sell almost anything if you can spend enough $$

If it pleases you, I am the ranting idiot. I don't any problem with whatever characterization you want to put me in.

I don't judge America by just what it eats. It is the waste and over-indulgence that will erode our wealth and our moral strength. An old wisdom, it takes 3 generations to waste a fortune. We are on our way there. History has a habit of repeating itself.

Junk is food is not necessay bad food, but it is food that you should not be eating all the time. It is convenient food made for the American lifestyle. Diabetes is epidemic in America, and is making healthcare very expensive. A drink that made American very rich and famous is now banned in schools. So does that tell you anything.

WW, I need you, too. Come on back in! I think Toymann needs some mentoring.

This idea that those who work hard, have ability and accumulate wealth are evil and should be demonized is interesting.

If you want to see concentration of wealth look at the sports world. Tens of million of people play sports at some level. Little league baseball, junior high basketball, girls soccer. However. 99. 9999999% of the wealth in sports is concentrated in the hands of about 1000 professional athletes. Nobody asks these athletes to share their wealth with the 99. 9999999% of athletes who don't have their talent, their work ethics or their genetics.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of people with limited success also have limited ability. These people are the equivalent of 3 foot tall basketball players, 95 pound pound football players or 400 pound sprinters. We do not punish or condemn successful athletes and we should not punish or condemn successful people.

[QUOTE=Miami Bob; 421120]The Goldman Sacks partners may decide that it is worth $100, 000, 000. Or more to get rid of the Obama guy. Let's presume set up thru Litchenstin-which never signed the tax treaty with the USA- the boys / gals set-up 100 corporations hiding thru Panama and the channel islands to each donate money to a number of different super packs. They have lunch with a few of their friends and former partners to raise another $100, 000, 000.

Now the wall street robber barons plaster the tv with public relations info and commercials to sell whatever themes their market research suggests would influnce the moderates in the USA to vote for anyone other than Obama. The just buy the elections, the same way mcdonalds influences average good people to buy their unhealthy shit that passes for food. [sorry to those out there who love micky D's-it is a collection of unehalthy and minimally nuitritous, ok tasting stuff]

Or assume that the shoe is one the other foot: instead of goldman sacks, warren buffet and a group of super-rich democrat types and entertainment businss folks, put up their own half billion dollars to sell the american people their own brand of horse manure-they could elect fidel castro on a write-in campaign as burak is too moderate for them.

USA will become a super circus with these new powerful super packs-elections need fund raising reform of some type. The new super packs will provide even more power to the super wealthy-a club the requires hundreds of millions of dollars to belong.

OK-I have been reading about mitt's nw tax proposals-it's trickle down economics, which was called "voodoo economics" by mainstream republicans 20 years ago-what's good for the rich, is good for the poor as the new found wealth of the wealthy will trickle down.[/QUOTE]The rich and powerful making sure of the status quo is not unique to America. It is a world wide phenomenon. Only question I suppose, is that if you are rich and powerful, what stance would you be taking?

The reagan years:

[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]

If your income is earned rather than from capital gains and interest on financial instruments, you are getting crapped on. The top 1% will do with their money whatever is in their own best interest. Starting jobs through investment might be somewhere on the list, but for most it is preservation of capital and minimizing risk of loss of capital.

The guys on this board with over $10,000,000, are you investing to start businesses to provide jobs or investing in manufacturing companies who might expand plants and hire workers in the USA? Most I know are holding a large % in cash or t-bills and are concerned about preserving capital and trying to beat the rate of inflation.

[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

[QUOTE=Toymann;421166]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]Would you be so kind to let us know what state you live in, so I could move there. Sounds so blissful and perfect. So I can qualify for welfare without having to prune any trees, right? I have an itch that I and the doctors cannot cure. Bangkok is getting so tiresome. It is full of prostitutes, and corrrupt policemen. And it is so hot and humid, and you can't get away from the mosquitoes.

Now that is a novel idea. Start running government like a business. Prune jobs, perks and fat when the money isn't there. Like the private sector has always done.

Dealing with government agencies is an 'out of this world experience'. Incompetent, lazy to the bone employees who think they are entitled to their jobs. Regardless of how inefficient they are. These employees actually think we are working for them.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 421169]Now that is a novel idea. Start running government like a business. Prune jobs, perks and fat when the money isn't there. Like the private sector has always done.

Dealing with government agencies is an 'out of this world experience'. Incompetent, lazy to the bone employees who think they are entitled to their jobs. Regardless of how inefficient they are. These employees actually think we are working for them.[/QUOTE]Politics are NOT my strong point!

I live in BA so who cares?

Please sell me on one of the candidates!

I believe that the garden can't be fixed in a 4 year term; but who ruined it, the previous gardner or the latest?

Is the current fixing the other?

Or is he making waves?

Man I don't know my left from my right or center!

Only while playing football

So who is the lesser of the evils?

TL.

P. S- I much rather brag about PUSSY!

[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?[/QUOTE]Wrong again, as usual.

In fact, since WWII, it's been the middle class in America that has made most of the income and "accumulated most of all wealth."

In the aggregate, America's middle class earns far more income and holds far more wealth than the top 1.

It's a simple fact related to the sheer number of people in the middle class: 150 million middle class citizens vs 3 million one "percent" citizens.

Do the math.

Of course, the facts have never stopped liberals from using this line to stoke class envy among the country's losers who are pre-disposed to believe that their own personal failures are somebody elses fault.

In any event, the entire premise of the "zero sum" argument that anyone's financial gain comes at the expense of everybody else is BS, which may be illustrated by one simple question: Bill Gates created software which improved the productivity of the entire world, thus benefiting every single person on the planet, and along the way he made for himself a personal fortune of more than $50 billion dollars. The question is: Are [u]you[/u] or anyone else on the planet any poorer because Bill Gates created this $50 billion in wealth for himself?

Of course the answer is "no", but that won't stop the country's losers from looking enviously at Bill Gate's fortune and think to themselves [i]"If I vote for the democrat liberals, they'll use the government's taxing authority to take the money from Bill Gates and give it to me".[/i]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre; 421170]Politics are NOT my strong point!

I live in BA so who cares?

Please sell me on one of the candidates!

I believe that the garden can't be fixed in a 4 year term; but who ruined it, the previous gardner or the latest?

Is the current fixing the other?

Or is he making waves?

Man I don't know my left from my right or center!

Only while playing football

So who is the lesser of the evils?

TL.

P. S- I much rather brag about PUSSY![/QUOTE]Presenting the profile of the typical Democrat voter.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;421168]Would you be so kind to let us know what state you live in, so I could move there.[/QUOTE]Ok dude. Google states with surpluses in 2011. But here are a few hints. No state income tax. Most republican state in the US. 88% voted against Obamanation in the last election. Wide open spaces and beautiful mountains. That should get you there. Sadly, based on your posts you might find that "your point of view might not be highly regarded". We have fast food chains but raising solid children and family is definitely high on the important list. One final clue. Hunting, fishing, golf, skiing, outdoor activities, etc. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;421173]Ok dude. Google states with surpluses in 2011. But here are a few hints. No state income tax. Most republican state in the US. 88% voted against Obamanation in the last election. Wide open spaces and beautiful mountains. That should get you there. Sadly, based on your posts you might find that "your point of view might not be highly regarded". We have fast food chains but raising solid children and family is definitely high on the important list. One final clue. Hunting, fishing, golf, skiing, outdoor activities, etc. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Thank you for your kind invitation to live in paradise. By the way, do you have your longjohns on? Yes, my viewpoints would be met with blank stares or even a snarl or two. Do they know what globalization is? I went to school in Nebraska, so I am familiar with the territory and the mindset. And yes, Santorum, I mean Custer's last stand was in the same vicinity.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;421174]And yes, Santorum, I mean Custer's last stand was in the same vicinity.[/QUOTE]Yes in the vicinity, in fact right next door. In fact, the first time elected democrat governor of the state next door took a 300 plus million dollar surplus 3 years ago, used it all up, and ran a north of 100 million dollar deficit in 2011. He's walking dead in November for sure. The great experiment is over in the GREAT state next door! As I always say,"never give the keys to bus to a democrat, they end up off the road in the ditch everytime"! Glad to hear you went to school in nebraska, somebody's got to go there. GO GAMECOCKS! LOL! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I'll acknowledge one correction. I should not have referred to "all income", but rather "income growth". Yes, adding 100M+ small / medium incomes will likely outweigh a few million high incomes. Although when you have one guy like John Paulson making $5 Billion, equivalent to 100,000 workers making 50K, it makes you wonder.

[QUOTE=Jackson;421171]In fact, since WWII, it's been the middle class in America that has made most of the income and "accumulated most of all wealth."[/QUOTE]A great place to start. Notice I referred to recent decades, but Jackson goes back to WWII. Most of the gains of the middle class came during the 1940s-1970s. When - coincidentally - tax rates on top earners were [u]far[/u] higher than they are today. We don't remember this period as a time when the rich were punished. We remember it as a time when the middle class grew and prospered. Which demonstrates how ridiculously absurd the rhetoric is from Republicans today, claiming that raising taxes on top earners enjoying historically low tax rates amounts to punishment.

[QUOTE]In the aggregate, America's middle class earns far more income and holds far more wealth than the top 1.

It's a simple fact related to the sheer number of people in the middle class: 150 million middle class citizens vs 3 million one "percent" citizens.

Do the math.[/QUOTE]Aggregate amounts don't tell the whole story. Look at the data, for income growth and wealth accumulation:

Income for the top 1% has soared over last three decades
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/income-for-the-top-1-has-soared-over-past-three-decades.html[/url]

How the rich became the über rich
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/news/economy/income_inequality/index.htm[/url]

The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the America's Gains
[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/16/the-top-5-grabbed-most-of-the-americas-gains/[/url]

The top 1% of households saw their after-tax household income grow by 275% from 1979 to 2007, according to the CBO. Meanwhile, income for the 60% of households that make up the middle of the income scale increased by slightly less than 40%. The poor -- the 20% of the population with the lowest income -- saw just an 18% increase. Also, more than 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The share of wealth held by the bottom 60% dropped 7.5%. I've posted such stats before, but conservatives tend to ignore such data. When you grow the pie and a majority only gets a few crumbs, that's hard to defend. A lot easier to just ignore.

You better believe that anytime more of the pie is given to a few, less of the pie is available to the many. There are abundant examples, to even question this is absurd.

[QUOTE]Of course, the facts have never stopped liberals from using this line to stoke class envy among the country's losers who are pre-disposed to believe that their own personal failures are somebody elses fault.[/QUOTE]And once again, without fail, conservatives whip out their divisive and unfactual rhetoric. I guess here the rich are 'winners' and everyone else are 'losers'. LOL!

One more time: It's not about envy. It's not about demonizing anyone. It's about people, rich and poor, simply taking a hard look at how free market capitalism is today distributing the prosperity it creates. And deciding, that the trends occuring are not acceptable, that as a society we can do better.

I am voting for him. He sounds like what us Democrats want."The Working Mans Hero".