Fall US Elections

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your victim-playing is transparent, Malcolm.

I am attacking your propaganda, not you.

Regardless. Why not have a civil discussion? Someone says he intends to vote Republican and you call Republicans "fascist". I ask where you put limits on State action and you call that "propagandistic baloney" Why not try civility?

But then, you advocate liberal use of interpersonal violence, so civility is obviously not a priority.

 

[jj]

Why not have a civil discussion?

Still playing the victim?

It's not even remotely civil to insinuate, to play straw men, to extrapolate inappropriately, use revisionist history, or misrepresent meanings of words in order to justify one's propaganda.

You first.

 

[Chaos]

Regardless. Why not have a civil discussion? Someone says he intends to vote Republican and you call Republicans "fascist". I ask where you put limits on State action and you call that "propagandistic baloney" Why not try civility?

But then, you advocate liberal use of interpersonal violence, so civility is obviously not a priority.

If you´d "ask where you put limits on State action", youd have asked: "Where do you put the limits on State action?", rather than spouting the usual propagandistic baloney.

Why not try honesty, Malcolm? Why not admit what you´re doing?

But then, you´re spewing propagandistic baloney, so honesty is obviously not a priority.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If you´d "ask where you put limits on State action", youd have asked: "Where do you put the limits on State action?", rather than spouting the usual propagandistic baloney.

How does the difference in the form of the question provoke this vehemence? I try to proceed from a materialistic and reductive definition of terms, so the definitions of "State", "law" "rights" and "title" involve the defining characteristic of government (dominant interpersonal violence). You use "propagandistic" as though that's dismissive. "Baloney" is certainly dismissive, but where do you disagree?

Why not try honesty, Malcolm? Why not admit what you´re doing?

Where do you see mendacity? What, other than indicating socialists' enthusiasm for violence, do you suppose I'm doing?

But then, you´re spewing propagandistic baloney, so honesty is obviously not a priority.

Where have I been other than direct? Clarity is a priority.

At least we got "fascist" and "liberal" out of the way.

Oh, since you raised the issue of honesty ... my name is Malcolm Kirkpatrick. What's yours?

 

[ehcks]

How does the difference in the form of the question provoke this vehemence? I try to proceed from a materialistic and reductive definition of terms, so the definitions of "State", "law" "rights" and "title" involve the defining characteristic of government (dominant interpersonal violence). You use "propagandistic" as though that's dismissive. "Baloney" is certainly dismissive, but where do you disagree?

Probably where you define "government" as "violence" and other such craziness.

Where do you see mendacity? What, other than indicating socialists' enthusiasm for violence, do you suppose I'm doing?Where have I been other than direct? Clarity is a priority.

That bolded part? Mendacity.
The italicized part? Also mendacity.

 

[RandFan]

What, other than indicating socialists' enthusiasm for violence....

The premise is false. An argument based on false preemies is not valid. When it is shown to be invalid and you continue to propagate the meme it is mendacious.

 

[Kestrel]

The fall elections are between those who want the government to assist poor, working class and middle class Americans and those who want the government to assist the wealthy.

 

[sunmaster14]

The fall elections are between those who want the government to assist poor, working class and middle class Americans and those who want the government to assist the wealthy.

Some of us see that the very same government programs which purport to assist the poor, working class and middle class Americans, actually hurt them in the long run. Some of us see that many liberal policies have unintended consequences, which are bad for the economy and highly corrosive to society.

I honestly don't know of a single person who shares my ideology who wants to assist the wealthy. That is the furthest thing from my mind, at any rate, as is hurting the poor.

 

[sunmaster14]

The premise is false. An argument based on false preemies is not valid. When it is shown to be invalid and you continue to propagate the meme it is mendacious.

The premise is not obviously false, nor can you show it to be false. The state, by definition, uses coercion to achieve its goals, and coercion ultimately is achieved by the threat or use of violence. To the extent that socialists want the state to have more control over the economy, they must necessarily approve of more coercion and agree to more violence to achieve it.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, by the way. It depends a great deal on how good a recipe for omelettes you have, and how hungry you are.

 

[Kestrel]

I honestly don't know of a single person who shares my ideology who wants to assist the wealthy. That is the furthest thing from my mind, at any rate, as is hurting the poor.

The policies you support do have exactly that effect. By lowering taxes on estates, you assure that the offspring of the rich will not have to work for a living for generations. Anti union legislation reduces the power of workers and increases the power of corporate executives. The taxation policies you support heavily favor those who let money work for them over those that work for a living.

 

[maxpower1227]

Some of us see that the very same government programs which purport to assist the poor, working class and middle class Americans, actually hurt them in the long run. Some of us see that many liberal policies have unintended consequences, which are bad for the economy and highly corrosive to society.

I honestly don't know of a single person who shares my ideology who wants to assist the wealthy. That is the furthest thing from my mind, at any rate, as is hurting the poor.

This kind of nonsense can only be described as willful ignorance at this point. Republican policies clearly favor the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Kestrel's example of their completely unreasonable campaign against the Estate ("Death!") Tax is a great example. Or how about when Republicans fought against providing health care for 9/11 first responders because the cost was going to be offset by closing a corporate tax loophole. Remember that?

 

[sunmaster14]

The policies you support do have exactly that effect. By lowering taxes on estates, you assure that the offspring of the rich will not have to work for a living for generations.

Hey, well the rich don't have an incentive to work now, so why don't we just take their money away from them and force them to re-earn it?

There are two things that estate tax-ers don't recognize. First, individuals don't just think about themselves, or the immediate needs of their families, they think about the future well-being of their families. Providing for one's children and grandchildren, even after one is gone, is a powerful incentive to work hard, save, and accumulate wealth now. Every bit as much, in my opinion, as the incentive to save for one's own retirement. Second, there are always going to be ways to circumvent taxes, estate taxes especially, but at a price. By making the estate taxes onerous (and they're lower than they used to be, but they're still ridiculously high), the state just encourages people to engage in unproductive shenanigans. This does stimulate significant economic activity among lawyers and accountants, I suppose, so there's at least a silver lining.

Anti union legislation reduces the power of workers and increases the power of corporate executives.

Unions are bad for the economy because they distort the labor markets. Lower productivity jobs pay more than they would command in a free market, which has the effect of encouraging skilled workers to take jobs for which they are overqualified. This in turn hurts unskilled workers, since the only jobs for which they are suited are being taken by the more skilled workers. Unions also tend to misalign incentives and sap individual motivation, especially by tying pay scales and job security to seniority rather than individual performance. The higher labor cost, which is ultimately passed on to consumers, is of course compounded by the need to support a union management infrastructure, which is like a microcosm of government, i.e. inefficient and prone to corruption.

The taxation policies you support heavily favor those who let money work for them over those that work for a living.

I don't think you know which taxation policies I support. I think it is far more important to lower taxes on work than to lower taxes on investment, although in general I advocate lowering all income taxes. I don't favor having a lower tax rate for capital gains than for other kinds of income. Other than mitigating the double taxation because of the presence of a corporate level tax, I don't see the point of giving a tax preference to investment over income derived from work.

 

[sunmaster14]

This kind of nonsense can only be described as willful ignorance at this point. Republican policies clearly favor the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Kestrel's example of their completely unreasonable campaign against the Estate ("Death!") Tax is a great example. Or how about when Republicans fought against providing health care for 9/11 first responders because the cost was going to be offset by closing a corporate tax loophole. Remember that?

No, I don't remember that. Why did 9/11 responders need a special appropriation for health care? Don't police and firemen have health insurance already? Was this just another case of lobbying for Federal money by a special interest group? And if the cause is deemed worthy enough to fund, why does it have to be tied to any particular tax? Sounds like the Democrats were cynically trying to use the (possibly) worthy cause of 9/11 responders' health needs to get rid of a corporate tax exemption they didn't like.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

How does the difference in the form of the question provoke this vehemence? I try to proceed from a materialistic and reductive definition of terms, so the definitions of "State", "law" "rights" and "title" involve the defining characteristic of government (dominant interpersonal violence). You use "propagandistic" as though that's dismissive. "Baloney" is certainly dismissive, but where do you disagree?

Probably where you define "government" as "violence" and other such craziness.

a) I did NOT define "government as 'violence' ". The government of __A__(locality) is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality. Google "Max Weber".
b) What's your definition of "government"? To be accurate, your definition must describe the current and historical range, from the Swiss government of today to the government of Pol Pot's Cambodia. No silver-hoofed unicorns allowed.

Where do you see mendacity? What, other than indicating socialists' enthusiasm for violence, do you suppose I'm doing? Where have I been other than direct? Clarity is a priority.

That bolded part? Mendacity.
The italicized part? Also mendacity.

A law or regulation is a threat of State violence. The difference between laissez faire capitalism (classical liberalism) and socialism is the relative reliance on mutual agreement (markets) versus State coercion. Socialists are much more enthusiastic about violence than are free marketeers, and it shows in their conduct in this forum.

Where have I been other than direct? Where do you see mendacity? Obviously we disagree. Perhaps one of us is lying, but more likely we disagree about the effects of policy. That might originate in deliberate deception but perhaps we predict different results from policy (e.g., minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The fall elections are between those who want the government to assist poor, working class and middle class Americans and those who want the government to assist the wealthy.

Perhaps we differ as to who is whom. Who received bailout funds? Who benefits from solar-power subsidies?

 

[maxpower1227]

Of course you don't remember that :roll eyes:

Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers

The bill calls for providing $3.2 billion over the next eight years to monitor and treat injuries stemming from exposure to toxic dust and debris at ground zero. New York City would pay 10 percent of those health costs.

The bill would also set aside $4.2 billion to reopen the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to provide payments for job and economic losses.

In addition, the bill includes a provision that would allow money from the Victim Compensation Fund to be paid to any eligible claimant who receives a payment under the settlement of lawsuits that 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers recently reached with the city.

The bill was filibustered because Republicans demanded that the cost be offset by spending cuts, rather than closing a corporate tax loophole that allowed foreign multinationals to avoid taxes with offshore havens. The only cynical things about this bill are your characterization of what you think the bill does (disappointing, but not surprising), and the fact that Republicans love to use all things 9/11 as political props, but balk when it comes to actually spending money to help those who are suffering from ill health as a result of their actions on that day.

Here are some of the actual reasons given by Republicans for opposing this bill:

The legislation has been paired with a fundamentally flawed and job-destroying tax increase, and therefore I will vote against it.

Going through that rubble, and their heroism themselves, they went there to save survivors, not to raise taxes.

Sure, defend those ********.

 

[maxpower1227]

There are two things that estate tax-ers don't recognize. First, individuals don't just think about themselves, or the immediate needs of their families, they think about the future well-being of their families. Providing for one's children and grandchildren, even after one is gone, is a powerful incentive to work hard, save, and accumulate wealth now. Every bit as much, in my opinion, as the incentive to save for one's own retirement. Second, there are always going to be ways to circumvent taxes, estate taxes especially, but at a price. By making the estate taxes onerous (and they're lower than they used to be, but they're still ridiculously high), the state just encourages people to engage in unproductive shenanigans. This does stimulate significant economic activity among lawyers and accountants, I suppose, so there's at least a silver lining.

You think the Estate Tax is "ridiculously high"? The Estate Tax which currently impacts less than 1% of all estates?

Inherited money seems to be the epitome of unearned wealth that conservatives are constantly railing against when it comes to "takers living on the government dole". The Estate Tax has been in existence for as long as this country has, with the purpose of preventing the accumulation of wealth remaining concentrated by simply being passed through the generations.

"The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and tempts him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would. See: Hilton, Paris’.

 

[Ladewig]

Socialism expresses an infantile, yet popular, power fantasy --"What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it".

Such a fantasy is hardly limited to socialism.

The circle labelled "What a wonderful world it would be if I ran it" is overflowing with people of many, many different political philosophies and economic philosophies.

 

[sunmaster14]

Of course you don't remember that :roll eyes:

Republicans Block U.S. Health Aid for 9/11 Workers



The bill was filibustered because Republicans demanded that the cost be offset by spending cuts, rather than closing a corporate tax loophole that allowed foreign multinationals to avoid taxes with offshore havens. The only cynical things about this bill are your characterization of what you think the bill does (disappointing, but not surprising), and the fact that Republicans love to use all things 9/11 as political props, but balk when it comes to actually spending money to help those who are suffering from ill health as a result of their actions on that day.

Here are some of the actual reasons given by Republicans for opposing this bill:





Sure, defend those ********.

Everything you have presented makes me think the Republicans are in the right (no pun intended) on this. That's even leaving aside the question of whether $7.4B for 9/11 responders is an absurdly high number. I mean has any analysis gone into this at all, or do advocates just get to pick a random, large number out of the air and then attack anyone who questions it as an unpatriotic and heartless scrooge?

 

[sunmaster14]

You think the Estate Tax is "ridiculously high"? The Estate Tax which currently impacts less than 1% of all estates?

The number of estates it actually hits is completely irrelevant. The tax is 40%. That's a very large percentage of a family's money to take simply because the patriarch or matriarch of the family dies. It's also so large that a wealthy family would gladly pay steep sums to lawyers and accountants, and jump through lots of hoops, to avoid paying it. The tax doesn't even raise much money, so the whole purpose appears to be punitive, as you indicate below.

Inherited money seems to be the epitome of unearned wealth that conservatives are constantly railing against when it comes to "takers living on the government dole". The Estate Tax has been in existence for as long as this country has, with the purpose of preventing the accumulation of wealth remaining concentrated by simply being passed through the generations.

Conservatives don't care about unearned wealth, or at least I don't. If somebody wins the lottery or gets some windfall, either in the stock market or by being "discovered" by Hollywood, it doesn't concern me. Did Mark Zuckerberg really "earn" $30B in any moral sense? Of course not. There's plenty of people who are both smarter and have worked harder, who are living middle class lives. Zuckerberg isn't any more entitled to his $30B than the winner of a lottery or the heir of a billionaire. All of them are very lucky, but I don't begrudge them that.

The more important issue of course isn't whether or not the heir "deserves" to inherit vast wealth. It's whether the owner of vast wealth has the right to give it to whomever he damn pleases. He has the right to spend it as he sees fit while he's still alive, right? I mean most people agree with that. He also has the right to spend it on "charitable" activities (in fact, the government subsidizes such spending, and I use the quotes to highlight the fact that what constitutes charitable spending is highly subjective). So why doesn't he have the right to give it to whomever he wants to otherwise?

As for whether inherited wealth spoils heirs and makes them lazy, well, that's for the benefactor to decide, not the government. Warren Buffet supposedly said that he wants to give enough money to his children so that they can do anything, but not enough so that they can do nothing. Not a bad philosophy, but it should be his choice to make. Not the government's. Of course, he is so ungodly wealthy that he has lost sight of the fact that the estate tax can be a burden for mere mortals. So he is happy to advocate for the government to foist his philosophy on others.