Dear Jarod... Rand Paul won...

cawacko said:
We do regulate it. Look at the 70,000 pages in our tax code to see the many ways we regulate it.
Click to expand...

No, not tax laws. Laws that protect consumers and workers and regulate Wall Street and the financial institutions. Laws that protect us from speculators that drive costs up unnecessarily. Consumers need to be protected from the greed.
 
Annie said:
ACA would be a start, though following many more.

I'm not naive, I acknowledge that there are those that would exploit any openings for their own profit advantages, there are those too that would break laws to make a 'killing.' On the first we need to make laws, on the second we need to prosecute, but that in the case of 'too big to fail' seems to be fantasyland. Not too mention how much those big banks gave to Obama and now to his lobbyist arm.
Click to expand...

How is ACA a move away from capitalism?

Even if so, do you have any other examples?
 
Threedee said:
What the fuck is it with the worker ownership? If you want to participate in a co-op, then please feel free to do so. There are many successful ones, and the first that comes to mind is WinCo Foods (because I have one right down the street).
Click to expand...


Just ask WanderingBear. His Hippyland is working so well, that he was living in a basement.
 
Rune said:
How is ACA a move away from capitalism?

Even if so, do you have any other examples?
Click to expand...

By mandating coverage for one. Do so or pay fine, since the fine is less than the coverage, many will have to do so. That's as close as possible to extortion. No coverage, (which was opted out of), but still have to pay. Fining folks for making their own decisions is not 'free.'

His 'class warfare' is not capitalistic, indeed it's socialistic at best. Demonizing the successful instead of using them as examples is not the best way to create wealth or even a healthy work force. Why work for those that are 'exploiting' labor?
 
Annie said:
By mandating coverage for one. Do so or pay fine, since the fine is less than the coverage, many will have to do so. That's as close as possible to extortion. No coverage, (which was opted out of), but still have to pay. Fining folks for making their own decisions is not 'free.'

His 'class warfare' is not capitalistic, indeed it's socialistic at best. Demonizing the successful instead of using them as examples is not the best way to create wealth or even a healthy work force. Why work for those that are 'exploiting' labor?
Click to expand...

What a way to force the poor to pay more. - Good job Obama :good4u:
 
Annie said:
His 'class warfare' is not capitalistic, indeed it's socialistic at best. Demonizing the successful instead of using them as examples is not the best way to create wealth or even a healthy work force. Why work for those that are 'exploiting' labor?
Click to expand...

Well, the class warfare isn't Obama's, nor Bush's, nor Clinton's. Heck, it's not even "warfare" at all - the closest thing to that would be Reagan's war on the poor.

What's happening right now just an extension of systematic subjugation of poor and working class individuals and families.
 
Annie said:
By mandating coverage for one. Do so or pay fine, since the fine is less than the coverage, many will have to do so. That's as close as possible to extortion. No coverage, (which was opted out of), but still have to pay. Fining folks for making their own decisions is not 'free.'
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you need to buy a dictionary. The mandated coverage is provided by PRIVATE companies.
His 'class warfare' is not capitalistic, indeed it's socialistic at best. Demonizing the successful instead of using them as examples is not the best way to create wealth or even a healthy work force. Why work for those that are 'exploiting' labor?
Click to expand...

What class warfare? I asked for examples, not more rhetoric. Do you have ANY proof of your charges at all? So far you have provided NONE.
 
Rana said:
No, not tax laws. Laws that protect consumers and workers and regulate Wall Street and the financial institutions. Laws that protect us from speculators that drive costs up unnecessarily. Consumers need to be protected from the greed.
Click to expand...
you mean laws that would prevent government bailouts and such? that kind of greed?
 
Sycamore said:
Well, the class warfare isn't Obama's, nor Bush's, nor Clinton's. Heck, it's not even "warfare" at all - the closest thing to that would be Reagan's war on the poor.

What's happening right now just an extension of systematic subjugation of poor and working class individuals and families.
Click to expand...

Which economy were the poor better off under - Nixon and Carter's 70s economy or Reagan's 80s economy?
 
Threedee said:
Which economy were the poor better off under - Nixon and Carter's 70s economy or Reagan's 80s economy?
Click to expand...

Relatively? Good question. But that's not what my post referred to.

I'm talking about class warfare. Cutting taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor and middle class. Cutting funding for public transit and job training. Characterizing poverty as a choice. Stagnating wages for lower brackets. Increasing income disparity. Slashing federal aid to the poor and poor areas - causing real harm to sanitation facilities, schools, libraries hospitals and the like. Increasing the rate of homelessness.
 
ronald-reagan.jpg
 
Rune said:
You are claiming Voodoo Economics was a good thing?
Click to expand...

Well, there's at least a correlation to success. I think that, at the very least, we can look at the tax cuts offered by JFK and Reagan as reasonable, because they were cutting from astronomical rates of 90% and 70%, respectively. In both cases, the system was jacked because no one is going to pay 70+% on their income when they can spend considerably less avoiding the taxes by shuffling their assets around and hiring accountants.

Now, Bush cutting taxes down from 39% to 34%, you could argue is negligible and not likely to have any longterm impact on federal revenues and fostering a positive business climate. In all three cases, JFK (on his New Freedom and Space initiatives), Reagan (on the Cold War) and Bush (on the War on Terror and Iraq), federal spending was jacked up considerably, and so the cuts were not met with spending cuts to offset them much, aside from the increased revenues as people became disincentivised to dodge high levels of income taxes.
 
Threedee said:
Well, there's at least a correlation to success. I think that, at the very least, we can look at the tax cuts offered by JFK and Reagan as reasonable, because they were cutting from astronomical rates of 90% and 70%, respectively. In both cases, the system was jacked because no one is going to pay 70+% on their income when they can spend considerably less avoiding the taxes by shuffling their assets around and hiring accountants.

Now, Bush cutting taxes down from 39% to 34%, you could argue is negligible and not likely to have any longterm impact on federal revenues and fostering a positive business climate. In all three cases, JFK (on his New Freedom and Space initiatives), Reagan (on the Cold War) and Bush (on the War on Terror and Iraq), federal spending was jacked up considerably, and so the cuts were not met with spending cuts to offset them much, aside from the increased revenues as people became disincentivised to dodge high levels of income taxes.
Click to expand...

Reagan caused temporary gains which were entirely reversed by the time Bush I had his chance.
 
Reagan's defense spending was certainly excessive. I think his Cold War aims were much more legitimate than Bush's War on Terror aims, because the stakes were much larger, and spending the USSR to death was literally the only tactical option to choose from. Specifically with his sideshow in Iraq, Bush had options to contain Saddam other than invasion. From WoT standpoint, we were better off with secular tyrants in power throughout the ME, because they can keep the Muslims in line (and Saddam provided a check on Iran and containment of Syria).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top