PDA

View Full Version : Koch, Lies and Videotape



dadakarma
04-01-2012, 10:16 AM
"Koch Brothers Exposed", Robert Greenwald's new movie, premiered this week.


This week as I premiered my new film, Koch Brothers Exposed (http://kochbrothersexposed.com/) — the result of a year-long investigation on how two billionaires are using their wealth to corrupt democracy — Koch Industries has launched an attack (http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/statement-on-greenwald/) on the film and me. The Kochs intimidate, they menace; they have a letter from their lawyer borderline threatening the media if it reports what’s in the film — and they always try to change the subject so their behavior can stay in the shadows: not only are they unwilling to accept my offer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89nAQMDZ7tg) of a debate or interview, they also refuse to testify (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/what-the-koch-brothers-sa_b_1260702.html) about their interest in the Keystone XL pipeline and may have to be dragged (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/koch-brothers-rove-fec-campaign-donations_n_1392838.html) kicking and screaming into revealing their secret contributions to groups doing election work. This time, the Kochs are using a technique I point out in the film: attacking to avoid dealing with the facts. They are dodging and distorting the truth to avoid confronting our findings on cancer, voting rights, civil rights, and more.

http://my.firedoglake.com/robertgreenwald/2012/03/31/kochs-lies-and-videotape/

ramone
04-01-2012, 10:24 AM
That is pretty laughable really, "The people on the left are using their money against their own economic interests", while the right use theirs for economic gain and to sabotage any type growth. Is that what the guy said? Really? You believe that hog wash, I don't. More MSNBC leftist propaganda, we all know how believable they are.

Conley
04-01-2012, 10:26 AM
I'd like to see an investigation into the connections between Obama, Corzine, MF Global and the Koch Brothers. From reading the article, I don't think the movie covers that.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 10:28 AM
More....


People are dying of cancer near the Kochs’ Georgia Pacific plant in Crossett, Arkansas, and the Kochs refuse to answer the relevant question: What are they going to do about it? On Penn Road in Crossett, right near the mill, residents powerfully show how nine out of 11 homes have suffered from cancer. A USA Today study said (http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/school/4677) Crossett’s school district is in the top 1% in the nation for cancer. Meanwhile, the Kochs’ facility releases significant amounts of formaldehyde — a known carcinogen — and there’s no other chemical plant in town. The Kochs are among the country’s top 10 polluters (http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxic_press/) and lobbied hard to keep formaldehyde from being labeled a carcinogen (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/14/formaldehyde_added_to_known_carcinogens_list). For a company where one of the owners (David Koch) and the communications director (Melissa Cohlmia) are cancer survivors, this is tragic and infuriating. It reflects a warped sense of humanity where greed trumps all.

Conley
04-01-2012, 10:33 AM
Wow, this is very specific - linked to from that snippet:

http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/school/4677

The entire smokestack report:

http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index

Good stuff, thanks Dada.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 10:35 AM
Wow, this is very specific - linked to from that snippet:

http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/school/4677

The entire smokestack report:

http://content.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/smokestack/index

Good stuff, thanks Dada.

No worries.

Guess it isn't "hogwash". ;)

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 10:51 AM
More from the article:


Americans for Prosperity (AFP), which is Koch-founded and Koch-financed (they refuse to say how much but we know it’s at least $5 million), pushed “reforms” in North Carolina that would destroy a school district’s model of racial integration and ensure students go to school mainly with people of their own race. We call out this “re-segregation” in Koch Brothers Exposed (http://kochbrothersexposed.com/). The Kochs, of course, try to hide from their connection — hoping we ignore not only their involvement in the founding and financing of AFP, but also the fact that David Koch has served as chair of the group’s supposedly nonpolitical arm, the AFP Foundation. Their dissembling doesn’t pass the laugh test–particularly when they’ve refused to open the books to show where their funding is coming from.

ramone
04-01-2012, 10:53 AM
No worries.

Guess it isn't "hogwash". ;)

You actually think that the left are using money that goes against their economic gain. Your not that gullible are you? Hey it was your video, and the entire thing smelled of left propaganda. Still does.

Conley
04-01-2012, 10:56 AM
Well I don't know who we're talking about specifically that is using money against their economic gain. Certainly the filmmaker stands to make money by going after the Koch Bros.

Still there are plenty of cases of philanthropy...it does happen.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 10:58 AM
Well I don't know who we're talking about specifically that is using money against their economic gain. Certainly the filmmaker stands to make money by going after the Koch Bros.

Still there are plenty of cases of philanthropy...it does happen.

It would be helpful if Ramone backed up what he said with sources that actually link to what he's proposing. ;)

ramone
04-01-2012, 11:09 AM
Well I don't know who we're talking about specifically that is using money against their economic gain. Certainly the filmmaker stands to make money by going after the Koch Bros.

Still there are plenty of cases of philanthropy...it does happen.

Watch his video in the OP, it plainly states it. Not sure what he is defending, maybe he didn't watch the video he posted.

Start around 1:20 to around 1:50 to see what I'm talking about. Anybody with this type mentality is an idiot and can't be believed. Not by me anyway.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 11:18 AM
Watch his video in the OP, it plainly states it. Not sure what he is defending, maybe he didn't watch the video he posted.

Start around 1:20 to around 1:50 to see what I'm talking about. Anybody with this type mentality is an idiot and can't be believed. Not by me anyway.

:rofl:

Conley
04-01-2012, 11:19 AM
Watch his video in the OP, it plainly states it. Not sure what he is defending, maybe he didn't watch the video he posted.

Start around 1:20 to around 1:50 to see what I'm talking about. Anybody with this type mentality is an idiot and can't be believed. Not by me anyway.

Thanks Ramone, I hadn't watched the video. :laugh: Bashir makes a good point that wealthy do it on both sides. I don't know who Greenwald is talking about, too bad Bashir didn't ask further.

keyser soze
04-01-2012, 12:59 PM
You actually think that the left are using money that goes against their economic gain. Your not that gullible are you? Hey it was your video, and the entire thing smelled of left propaganda. Still does.
The point was that there are those on the left who are influential that are calling for higher taxes for instance...some would call that against their interests, I would, but I agree they need to pay more taxes and have less tax payer funded 'welfare' for the rich ie corporations.

This I will watch when available. Thanks Dada.

Mainecoons
04-01-2012, 01:01 PM
:rofl:

Not a very impressive rebuttal. As usual.

Conley
04-01-2012, 01:48 PM
The point was that there are those on the left who are influential that are calling for higher taxes for instance...some would call that against their interests, I would, but I agree they need to pay more taxes and have less tax payer funded 'welfare' for the rich ie corporations.

This I will watch when available. Thanks Dada.

I haven't really understood why men like Buffett clamor for more taxes but use every loophole available to them to avoid paying. You can write the Federal Government a check for as much money as you want. I also don't understand why the left would want to raise taxes when so much of every dollar goes to wars which I don't believe those individuals would support. I think that money would probably be better spent given to charities that individual leftists believe in.

keyser soze
04-01-2012, 01:56 PM
It seems to me that loop holes are written in to the advantage of a few. The majority of us deal with such things as an approximately 35% rate between federal and state...add others like gasoline etc. We pay our taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes if it fair and equitable. I find it isn't. I think that's the point Buffett makes. He will avail himself of those exemptions etc. that are available to him, as we all would, but he recognizes the inequality of the system. I don't find that odd.

I agree about the cost of our military and two unpaid for wars...also all the prisons and privatizing of our schools etc. I don't see this as cost effective anymore than I think the Affordable Healthcare Act is the best solution. It does some good things that need to be done but doesn't go the distance at the cost effectiveness that a single payer system would.

We could do a lot of needed infrastructure work with the costs of these wars and our military at it's current level.

Conley
04-01-2012, 02:02 PM
It seems to me that loop holes are written in to the advantage of a few. The majority of us deal with such things as an approximately 35% rate between federal and state...add others like gasoline etc. We pay our taxes. I don't mind paying my taxes if it fair and equitable. I find it isn't. I think that's the point Buffett makes. He will avail himself of those exemptions etc. that are available to him, as we all would, but he recognizes the inequality of the system. I don't find that odd.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that point. To me, saying the system is unfair and then taking advantage of said system isn't something that we would all do. In fact, there was an interesting thread a few weeks ago on here about who claims charity deductions on their taxes and who doesn't. I do claim my deductions, but I found it interesting that others didn't for various reasons.


I agree about the cost of our military and two unpaid for wars...also all the prisons and privatizing of our schools etc. I don't see this as cost effective anymore than I think the Affordable Healthcare Act is the best solution. It does some good things that need to be done but doesn't go the distance at the cost effectiveness that a single payer system would.

We could do a lot of needed infrastructure work with the costs of these wars and our military at it's current level.

I agree with this very much. We could be 'nation building' here at home - the only kind of nation building I support, by the way - improving our infrastructure, growing the economy, cutting down on unemployment with those projects, and not sending our men and women out to die in a third world hellhole that has very little to do with our national security or interests.

keyser soze
04-01-2012, 03:15 PM
I guess we'll have to disagree on that point. To me, saying the system is unfair and then taking advantage of said system isn't something that we would all do. In fact, there was an interesting thread a few weeks ago on here about who claims charity deductions on their taxes and who doesn't. I do claim my deductions, but I found it interesting that others didn't for various reasons.

I often hear about how something is legal but flies in the face of what's right or what's intended. These things should be corrected but aren't..instead we seem to have legislators who will do anything to serve their 'owners' at the cost of the people and use any means to justify it. I give kudos to Buffet for recognizing the inequality and putting money where it might do most good to change the laws even at his expense...to me his use of tax law doesn't negate his efforts. I'm not as inclined to throw everything out due to a flaw as I once was. The Koch brothers are another, different, story.



I agree with this very much. We could be 'nation building' here at home - the only kind of nation building I support, by the way - improving our infrastructure, growing the economy, cutting down on unemployment with those projects, and not sending our men and women out to die in a third world hellhole that has very little to do with our national security or interests.

Billions upon billions of dollars and the income gap increases until we are now more divided than during the great depression or the great crash. People are hurting. That for me is national security. In other words, yes, we agree.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 03:21 PM
You'll love this, Keyser. Daddy Koch was a Bircher.


Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch have been dominant financiers for conservative front groups and nonprofits for nearly three decades. Their money has flowed to organizations dedicated to lobbying for corporate and upper income tax cuts, as well as to groups responsible for mobilizing Tea Party rallies against President Obama. But the Koch family’s association with fringe right-wing groups began a generation earlier with Fred Koch, the patriarch of the clan.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/242334/john-birch-society-celebrates-koch/

keyser soze
04-01-2012, 03:29 PM
I've been aware of that for quite a while...if you listen to the sound bites that come out by the rightwing it's straight on Bircher. Thank ALEC.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 04:32 PM
Billions upon billions of dollars and the income gap increases until we are now more divided than during the great depression or the great crash. People are hurting. That for me is national security. In other words, yes, we agree.

But we have a safety net now, unlike during the Great Depression. How does that affect your argument?

Conley
04-01-2012, 05:07 PM
But we have a safety net now, unlike during the Great Depression. How does that affect your argument?

I understand where you're coming from with the GD, but our 'safety net' stinks. It's corrupted with some using it for personal gain and waste while others who don't play the system suffer.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 05:53 PM
Yes, are safety net has turned into a hammock. That is a problem.

dadakarma
04-01-2012, 06:35 PM
Just a smattering of the reach of Koch tentacles:


Koch companies' products are everywhere we look- In our offices, homes and backyards. We walk on them. Wear Them. Eat off them. We use them to clean spills or to keep spills from staining. Chances are, nearly every store you walk into sell a Koch company product. Next time you shop, be on the lookout for these familiar brands:


Investa
Lycra
Cool Max
Tactel
Solar max
Polarguard
Dacron
Thermolite
Comforel
Antron
Stainmaster
Cordura


Georgia-Pacific
Vanity Fair
Angel Soft
Quilted Northern
Sparkle
Brawny
Mardi Gras
Dixie
DensArmor Plus
Plyntanium
Tough Rock
Demak Up
Kittensoft
Lotuss
Moltonel
Tenderly
Nouvelle
Okay
Calhogar
Delica
Inversoft
Tutto



Plenty more:
http://kochwatch.org/index.php?q=node/28

keyser soze
04-01-2012, 06:57 PM
Yes we do have a safety net unlike the great depression and because of the great depression. The right is doing everything possible to dismantle said safety net. What would it be like without what we have? How many more homeless, sick and hungry people would we have? The only ones that are in 'recovery' are the top 10% but there are jobs now where there weren't. Even so we will never see all the jobs come back that have been lost without some kind of concerted effort made. I remember in 2010 all the noise the right made about jobs and what have they done for two years? I haven't seen many efforts beyond attacking planned parenthood and making it almost impossible for women to have access to reproductive health care...ie abortion. Most of the energy has been put toward social engineering and pushing the culture war when people need real help. Who went to jail when the economy collapsed? We were all robbed...but the finger has been pointed at the poor.

The amount of money spent and not funded by these wars and unfunded medicare part D would have gone a long way toward helping a lot of people here in our country.

I think we all want the same things for our country. War is a waste, but it's the biggest jobs program we have.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 07:34 PM
Yes we do have a safety net unlike the great depression and because of the great depression. The right is doing everything possible to dismantle said safety net. What would it be like without what we have? How many more homeless, sick and hungry people would we have? The only ones that are in 'recovery' are the top 10% but there are jobs now where there weren't. Even so we will never see all the jobs come back that have been lost without some kind of concerted effort made. I remember in 2010 all the noise the right made about jobs and what have they done for two years? I haven't seen many efforts beyond attacking planned parenthood and making it almost impossible for women to have access to reproductive health care...ie abortion. Most of the energy has been put toward social engineering and pushing the culture war when people need real help. Who went to jail when the economy collapsed? We were all robbed...but the finger has been pointed at the poor.

The amount of money spent and not funded by these wars and unfunded medicare part D would have gone a long way toward helping a lot of people here in our country.

I think we all want the same things for our country. War is a waste, but it's the biggest jobs program we have.

No serious person argues that the safety net should be dismantled. That is not even Ron Paul's position. (BOO).

What serious people argue is that the safety net needs to be reformed to make it sustainable. Otherwise it will contribute to the collapse of the US economy.

Where will the poor people be then?

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 07:35 PM
Oh, and about war- it is only a compelling economic stimulus program when it isn't in your own country....

Mainecoons
04-01-2012, 08:05 PM
Yes we do have a safety net unlike the great depression and because of the great depression. The right is doing everything possible to dismantle said safety net. What would it be like without what we have? How many more homeless, sick and hungry people would we have? The only ones that are in 'recovery' are the top 10% but there are jobs now where there weren't. Even so we will never see all the jobs come back that have been lost without some kind of concerted effort made. I remember in 2010 all the noise the right made about jobs and what have they done for two years? I haven't seen many efforts beyond attacking planned parenthood and making it almost impossible for women to have access to reproductive health care...ie abortion. Most of the energy has been put toward social engineering and pushing the culture war when people need real help. Who went to jail when the economy collapsed? We were all robbed...but the finger has been pointed at the poor.

The amount of money spent and not funded by these wars and unfunded medicare part D would have gone a long way toward helping a lot of people here in our country.

I think we all want the same things for our country. War is a waste, but it's the biggest jobs program we have.

All sounds good, great emotionalizing. Now lets look at the reality:

Repeal the "Bush" tax cuts: Most new taxes paid by middle class, only covers about 25% of the ObamaDeficits.

Confiscate all wealth over one million: Covers about 75 percent of just one year's ObamaDeficits.

It is great to emote but facts are a bitch. And the bitch is that the entitlement society that liberals constructed over the last 50 years isn't affordable or sustainable. From Social Security to Medicare to Medicade to Prescription Drug the books just don't balance.

Peter1469
04-01-2012, 08:25 PM
Repeal the Bush tax cuts and the lower classes will see a 50% increase in their taxes... Oops, liberals can't have that. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/10/07/expiration-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-will-hit-poor-hardest.php

MMC
04-01-2012, 10:08 PM
Repeal the Bush tax cuts and the lower classes will see a 50% increase in their taxes... Oops, liberals can't have that. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/10/07/expiration-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-will-hit-poor-hardest.php

Well they can.....it's just all the money will go into their politicians pockets.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 07:40 AM
Repeal the Bush tax cuts and the lower classes will see a 50% increase in their taxes... Oops, liberals can't have that. http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/10/07/expiration-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-will-hit-poor-hardest.php

50% is probably a high estimate, but many in the middle class are willing to pay more. Without digging for my links, I don't remember if Bush lowered cap gains. A simple raising of cap gains would alleviate the need for a marginal tax rate hike....something the ultra wealthy don't pay anyway.

Stoney
04-02-2012, 08:13 AM
The theory behind lower capital gains taxes is that it allows greater investment into markets that spur the economy. The theory behind more taxes to the government is to take more money from some and pay for a bloated bureaucracy that distributes more and more of those taxes to people who should be providing for themselves.

MMC
04-02-2012, 08:20 AM
50% is probably a high estimate, but many in the middle class are willing to pay more. Without digging for my links, I don't remember if Bush lowered cap gains. A simple raising of cap gains would alleviate the need for a marginal tax rate hike....something the ultra wealthy don't pay anyway.

But many in the middles class are willing to pay more? Not in Illinois, NY, California, Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania.....just to name a few. Let me guess, you were talking about Kepler 22.....huh?

Dagny
04-02-2012, 08:24 AM
The theory behind lower capital gains taxes is that it allows greater investment into markets that spur the economy. The theory behind more taxes to the government is to take more money from some and pay for a bloated bureaucracy that distributes more and more of those taxes to people who should be providing for themselves.

The cap gains theory hasn't produced one job. Quite the contrary. In fact, it COSTS jobs.

As well, now that the best investments, with lowest tax liability seems to be the futures market, the combination of low cap gains, coupled with high prices for fuel have done nothing to help the economy.

Further, the abuse of the cap gains loopholes allows many to pay next to nothing in taxes, even though their income isn't derived via investment.

See hedge fund managers.

And most CEOs

Mainecoons
04-02-2012, 08:24 AM
You are an amazing demonstration of confused thinking. The statement was about lower class taxes, not whether the middle class might be willing or able to pay more, an opinion and nothing else. The Bush/Congressional tax cuts did reduce capital gains taxes, which the largest part by far goes to pension funds.

The IRS begs to differ with your final opinion, just another one not supported by fact. In fact, the majority of income taxes are paid by the wealthy.


The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal
taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional
Budget Office (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/Congressional+Budget+Office).

There are better references but I'm trying to keep it simple enough for someone of your obviously limited grasp of economics to understand.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1

The fact is that the upper middle class and wealthy have always paid most of the Federal taxes and probably most of the state and local taxes as well. This is why "soak the rich" is just so much liberal BS meant to distract everyone's attention fromt the real problem which is runaway spending.


Consider the Internal Revenue Service’s income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the “millionaires and billionaires” Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/18/wsj-shows-taxing-the-rich-wont-cover-the-bill/

Now there is some dispute over whether confiscating the wealth of the "rich" will cover a year or two of ObamaDeficits depending on where you draw the line. If you draw it at $100K of joint income, it would cover less than two years. If only the millionaires and up, just barely over a half year. But the bottom line is that the soak the rich rhetoric of the left is a bunch of BS.

Mainecoons
04-02-2012, 08:37 AM
The cap gains theory hasn't produced one job. Quite the contrary. In fact, it COSTS jobs.

Let's see your source for this amazing bit of blarney.

Actually, cap gains tax cuts do not of themselves create jobs. Here's a well reasoned explanation of why that is true:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-12/news/30500948_1_entrepreneurs-and-investors-capital-gains-and-income-jobs



THE TRUTH ABOUT TAX RATES: Click to see how low today's really are.The most important reason the theory that "rich people create the jobs" is absurd, argues Nick Hanauer (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-07/raise-taxes-on-rich-to-reward-true-job-creators-nick-hanauer.html), the founder of online advertising company aQuantive, which Microsoft (http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/microsoft) bought for $6.4 billion, is that rich people do not create jobs, even if they found and build companies that eventually employ thousands of people.What creates the jobs, Hanauer astutely observes, is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers.
The company's customers buy the company's products, which, in turn, creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur does.

Note that part about the healthy economic ecosystem. This is explained even better towards the end of the reference.


(Or, to put it even more simply, it's like saying that a seed creates a tree. The seed does not create the tree. The seed starts the tree. But what creates the tree is the combination of the DNA in the seed and the soil, sunshine, water, atmosphere, nutrients, and other factors that nurture it. Plant the seed in an inhospitable environment, and it won't create anything. It will die.)

And that, my fact-challenged friend, is the nub of the problem here. Government and Wall Street/Bank fraud enabled by government has created an inhospitable environment for business in America. Whether the cap gains tax rate is 15 or 20 percent has little bearing on job creation, though the data showed a clear jump in economic activity and tax collections when the rate was cut from 28 percent to 20 percent during the Clinton administration. (Clinton, unlike the current Radical In Chief understood full well that when the private sector prospers it creates additional revenue for the public sector.)

Dagny
04-02-2012, 08:51 AM
Let's see your source for this amazing bit of blarney.

Actually, cap gains tax cuts do not of themselves create jobs. Here's a well reasoned explanation of why that is true:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-12/news/30500948_1_entrepreneurs-and-investors-capital-gains-and-income-jobs



Note that part about the healthy economic ecosystem. This is explained even better towards the end of the reference.



And that, my fact-challenged friend, is the nub of the problem here. Government and Wall Street/Bank fraud enabled by government has created an inhospitable environment for business in America. Whether the cap gains tax rate is 15 or 20 percent has little bearing on job creation, though the data showed a clear jump in economic activity and tax collections when the rate was cut from 28 percent to 20 percent during the Clinton administration. (Clinton, unlike the current Radical In Chief understood full well that when the private sector prospers it creates additional revenue for the public sector.)

Pretty odd. You call me names, and then post links that agree with my assertion.

That's why I don't bother addressing fools such as yourself.

MMC
04-02-2012, 08:55 AM
Pretty odd. You call me names, and then post links that agree with my assertion.

That's why I don't bother addressing fools such as yourself.


Yeah and as usual.....your to busy looking in that compact mirror you carry.

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Pretty odd. You call me names, and then post links that agree with my assertion.

That's why I don't bother addressing fools such as yourself.

Gotta love it. :rofl:

Mister D
04-02-2012, 10:16 AM
Actually, his links don't prove your assertion. Unless of course your assertion was that lower capital gains taxes do not themselves magically create jobs but then that would be inane, no?

I'll take silence to mean you're finished making fools of yourselves. :wink:

MMC
04-02-2012, 10:19 AM
Actually, his links don't prove your assertion. Unless of course your assertion was that lower capital gains taxes do not themselves magically create jobs but then that would inane, no?

I'll take silence to mean you're finished making fools of yourselves. :wink:


Yeah they did the same thing with Pete.....when Pete was even helping them to get past one of those recycling loops that won't allow them to move forward. :laugh:

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 11:55 AM
The cap gains theory hasn't produced one job. Quite the contrary. In fact, it COSTS jobs.

As well, now that the best investments, with lowest tax liability seems to be the futures market, the combination of low cap gains, coupled with high prices for fuel have done nothing to help the economy.

Further, the abuse of the cap gains loopholes allows many to pay next to nothing in taxes, even though their income isn't derived via investment.

See hedge fund managers.

And most CEOs

Are you talking about stock share prices?

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:01 PM
Are you talking about stock share prices?
Ahhh...there is intelligent life on this board.

Correct. When CEO pay is awarded via shares, (to avoid taxation) the only goal is to keep said shares trading higher, and higher.

No better way to do that, than to lay off a few thousand workers.

Corporate profits: Historical highs.

Still laying off employees.

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 12:03 PM
Ahhh...there is intelligent life on this board.

Correct. When CEO pay is awarded via shares, (to avoid taxation) the only goal is to keep said shares trading higher, and higher.

No better way to do that, than to lay off a few thousand workers.

Corporate profits: Historical highs.

Still laying off employees.

That's why we kept hearing about how rosy the economy was during Bush's terms - corps were hemorrhaging jobs while stock prices went up.

Conley
04-02-2012, 12:03 PM
50% is probably a high estimate, but many in the middle class are willing to pay more. Without digging for my links, I don't remember if Bush lowered cap gains. A simple raising of cap gains would alleviate the need for a marginal tax rate hike....something the ultra wealthy don't pay anyway.

I really don't believe that many in the middle class are willing to pay more. Especially when the wealthiest are paying such a small percentage through the various means available to them.

Conley
04-02-2012, 12:05 PM
Ahhh...there is intelligent life on this board.

Correct. When CEO pay is awarded via shares, (to avoid taxation) the only goal is to keep said shares trading higher, and higher.

No better way to do that, than to lay off a few thousand workers.

Corporate profits: Historical highs.

Still laying off employees.

That's a gross over simplification though. Plenty of firms need to hire to keep up with growth. It varies across industry. Layoffs are generally not a sign of a company excelling and won't automatically lead to higher share prices.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:06 PM
I really don't believe that many in the middle class are willing to pay more. Especially when the wealthiest are paying such a small percentage through the various means available to them.It makes no sense to take more from the middle class.

As I said...the 50% claim seems very high to me. But...if it meant that the upper 2% paid more, I'm sure there are those who would be willing to contribute more.

And as I've already mentioned....keep marginal tax rates the same, and raise cap gains to 25%.

In fact, $100,000.00/yr or less, should get at a minimum, a 10% marginal rate decrease in order to stimulate the economy.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:08 PM
That's a gross over simplification though. Plenty of firms need to hire to keep up with growth. It varies across industry. Layoffs are generally not a sign of a company excelling and won't automatically lead to higher share prices.
If firms need to hire, they're making plenty of money. Watching the stock market proves my assertion. First you have to separate out the gains from the commodities whores.

I said nothing about a company excelling. That's the problem. CEO pay is excelling, and they're avoiding taxation.

Conley
04-02-2012, 12:09 PM
If firms need to hire, they're making plenty of money. Watching the stock market proves my assertion. First you have to separate out the gains from the commodities whores.

I said nothing about a company excelling. That's the problem. CEO pay is excelling, and they're avoiding taxation.

You said there's no better way to increase share prices than by laying off workers, correct? I disagree strongly.

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 12:10 PM
If firms need to hire, they're making plenty of money. Watching the stock market proves my assertion. First you have to separate out the gains from the commodities whores.

I said nothing about a company excelling. That's the problem. CEO pay is excelling, and they're avoiding taxation.

The standard by which 'progress' was measured was stock price and CEO pay during Bush's terms. Main Street was fucked as a result. Their progress wasn't necessary for their favorable assessment.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:12 PM
You said there's no better way to increase share prices than by laying off workers, correct? I disagree strongly.
Had trouble editing last post....buttons stuck.

There's no quicker way to increase share prices. CEO pay continues to rise, while layoffs continue. Corporations are reaping record profits, with smaller workforce.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:12 PM
The standard by which 'progress' was measured was stock price and CEO pay during Bush's terms. Main Street was fucked as a result. Their progress wasn't necessary for their favorable assessment.Precisely. Income gap grew geometrically

Conley
04-02-2012, 12:14 PM
The standard by which 'progress' was measured was stock price and CEO pay during Bush's terms. Main Street was fucked as a result. Their progress wasn't necessary for their favorable assessment.

Do you think this has changed during Obama's time in office? I don't, and it's one of the things I fault him for. I think Main Street is still very much in danger. I'm disappointed that no oversight has been brought to Wall Street but after getting hammered repeatedly I think Main Street should have woken up by now as well.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:19 PM
Do you think this has changed during Obama's time in office? I don't, and it's one of the things I fault him for. I think Main Street is still very much in danger. I'm disappointed that no oversight has been brought to Wall Street but after getting hammered repeatedly I think Main Street should have woken up by now as well.No...nothing has changed.

Given the fact that Wall St. is breaking records, and unemployment isn't moving....do you see my point?

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 12:19 PM
Do you think this has changed during Obama's time in office? I don't, and it's one of the things I fault him for. I think Main Street is still very much in danger. I'm disappointed that no oversight has been brought to Wall Street but after getting hammered repeatedly I think Main Street should have woken up by now as well.

Much of Main Street is awake now. It took considerable pain - homelessness, joblessness, 401(k) evaporation, etc. - to get them there.

I agree that much more can and should be done during the Obama administration to address the problems and Glass-Steagall should've been reinstated as priority one. No one's gone to jail and no meaningful regulation has been enforced.

You should rent 'Inside Job', if you haven't already seen it. Really eye-opening.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Much of Main Street is awake now. It took considerable pain - homelessness, joblessness, 401(k) evaporation, etc. - to get them there.

I agree that much more can and should be done during the Obama administration to address the problems and Glass-Steagall should've been reinstated as priority one. No one's gone to jail and no meaningful regulation has been enforced.

You should rent 'Inside Job', if you haven't already seen it. Really eye-opening.

Gridlock in Congress assures that nothing will change, and the corporate investments are secure.

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 12:28 PM
Gridlock in Congress assures that nothing will change, and the corporate investments are secure.

There's the point.

dsolo802
04-02-2012, 12:29 PM
Gridlock in Congress assures that nothing will change, and the corporate investments are secure.The vested interests - who keep our leaders in office - always benefit from the status quo. It has nothing to do with the People as such.

dsolo802
04-02-2012, 12:33 PM
Do you think this has changed during Obama's time in office? I don't, and it's one of the things I fault him for. I think Main Street is still very much in danger. I'm disappointed that no oversight has been brought to Wall Street but after getting hammered repeatedly I think Main Street should have woken up by now as well.Dodd-Frank barely passed, and that was with one tooth. It seems to me, the bulk of the time spent by both parties has been spent since arguing about whether or not that one tooth should be removed. Given this, I'm scratching my head on this and other issues, and wondering how any man, of either party, could get anything done?

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 12:33 PM
The vested interests - who keep our leaders in office - always benefit from the status quo. It has nothing to do with the People as such.

Exactly. The game is rigged that way. The whole party system is a ruse to create the illusion that We the People have a choice in the matter.

That's why these wedge issues are used. If they can keep us all bickering over stupid crap like gay marriage, no one will notice that our country's been hijacked by the plutocrats.

ramone
04-02-2012, 12:55 PM
Hard for the people to be in control when the president signs 115 executive orders in three years.
http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01/current-list-of-president-obamas.html

Mister D
04-02-2012, 12:57 PM
Exactly. The game is rigged that way. The whole party system is a ruse to create the illusion that We the People have a choice in the matter.

That's why these wedge issues are used. If they can keep us all bickering over stupid crap like gay marriage, no one will notice that our country's been hijacked by the plutocrats.

Yet ths very same rebel and free thinker will soon be back chasing Koch bogeymen and attacking the "right wing". That is, she will regress to the partisan foolishness that got us into this mess in the first place.

Conley
04-02-2012, 01:04 PM
Dodd-Frank barely passed, and that was with one tooth. It seems to me, the bulk of the time spent by both parties has been spent since arguing about whether or not that one tooth should be removed. Given this, I'm scratching my head on this and other issues, and wondering how any man, of either party, could get anything done?

I only brought up Obama's name because the original post referred to Wall Street under Bush. Certainly one man can't do it alone. However, when it was an issue during the campaign and when Obama had the Democratic majority I think it became very clear where his priorities were. That and of course the cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 01:27 PM
I only brought up Obama's name because the original post referred to Wall Street under Bush. Certainly one man can't do it alone. However, when it was an issue during the campaign and when Obama had the Democratic majority I think it became very clear where his priorities were. That and of course the cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs.
Obama's biggest sin, was filling his cabinet with conservatives.

Thus, the cozy little c. jerk w/Wall St.

Mister D
04-02-2012, 01:31 PM
Obama's biggest sin, was filling his cabinet with conservatives.

Thus, the cozy little c. jerk w/Wall St.

BO's cabinet is full of conservatives? What?

MMC
04-02-2012, 01:34 PM
BO's cabinet is full of conservatives? What?


Yeah Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Plouse, Clinton and Panetta are mainly conservative. :rollseyes:

Mister D
04-02-2012, 01:39 PM
How do you respond to something so delusional?

MMC
04-02-2012, 01:44 PM
How do you respond to something so delusional?


I had to talk to you about it, as you were like.



http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4659477383348528&id=1c636d36061ad286089a30a9fd95dfec&url=http%3a%2f%2fscrapetv.com%2fNews%2fNews%20Page s%2fEveryone%20Else%2fimages-6%2fmiley-cyrus-tongue.jpg

Doesn't that say enough.

ramone
04-02-2012, 02:03 PM
How do you respond to something so delusional?

I was going to put it in my sig but couldn't get it to work, not sure why. That doesn't even make any sense to even a semi rational person. I'm willing to bet that the rain man had a better grasp on politics than that.

Wait, LOL, it did work, woohoo!! It's just not retroactive.....hmm....

Mister D
04-02-2012, 02:07 PM
I was going to put it in my sig but couldn't get it to work, not sure why. That doesn't even make any sense to even a semi rational person. I'm willing to bet that the rain man had a better grasp on politics than that.

Wait, LOL, it did work, woohoo!! It's just not retroactive.....hmm....

Great stuff. :grin:

dsolo802
04-02-2012, 02:20 PM
I only brought up Obama's name because the original post referred to Wall Street under Bush. Certainly one man can't do it alone. However, when it was an issue during the campaign and when Obama had the Democratic majority I think it became very clear where his priorities were. That and of course the cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs.I probably did not read back far enough to see the tit for tat context you mention, Conley. Apologies. I tend to come into the site, see a post i find interesting and dive deep.

If it is your point there is not that much difference between Bush's attitude toward Wall Street and Obama's, I'd say there is some validity there. Obama is not and has never been an enemy of Wall Street, as the advisers he chose does demonstrate. That said, he certainly could be a friend of Wall Street and business in general, without being for the Wall Street / Big Bank practices that nearly reduced the world economy to rubble. Mr. Bush, I think, has always believed that whatever is good for big business is good for America. I do not believe Mr. Obama has ever believed like that.

Obama did not campaign as a leftist - though the folks on the left wanted to believe that about him. Obama was never an enemy of the free market, as his gift of millions more customers to the private health insurance industry demonstrates. At a time when his own party was pushing at least for public option, and he might have gotten the votes, he chose instead to go with model that was hatched at Heritage and championed by people like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney.

Dodd Frank was Obama attempting to be the centrist he said in his campaign for Presidency he would be. He earned a reputation in the Senate by reaching across the aisle to work with people like Dick Lugar to get the people's work done. As far as I can see, that is what he attempted to do with both Health Care and Finance Reform.

What he managed to produce by taking this route disappointed the people on the far right because he went too far, the left because he didn't go far enough, and the center, because what little precious compromise he was able to win is being frustrated by the GOP playing obstructionist.

ramone
04-02-2012, 02:32 PM
Obama did not campaign as a leftist - though the folks on the left wanted to believe that about him. Obama was never an enemy of the free market, as his gift of millions more customers to the private health insurance industry demonstrates.

Really, would you care to expand on that theory? He said straight up he would fundamentally change America and he has. Do you not think that creating a welfare state is a leftest communistic attitude? How does a ( Jeeze I don't know how to phrase this ) a "Gift" a gift of who's money to a welfare state of health insurance, a gift? You can't be serious about that, yes it is a gift of my money to people who won't work. It will also drive up insurance costs beyond any expectations. Have you not seen any news lately and the projections estimated with new adjustments that have just come out of this huge bill that nobody still knows what entails?

Dagny
04-02-2012, 02:32 PM
I probably did not read back far enough to see the tit for tat context you mention, Conley. Apologies. I tend to come into the site, see a post i find interesting and dive deep.

If it is your point there is not that much difference between Bush's attitude toward Wall Street and Obama's, I'd say there is some validity there. Obama is not and has never been an enemy of Wall Street, as the advisers he chose does demonstrate. That said, he certainly could be a friend of Wall Street and business in general, without being for the Wall Street / Big Bank practices that nearly reduced the world economy to rubble. Mr. Bush, I think, has always believed that whatever is good for big business is good for America. I do not believe Mr. Obama has ever believed like that.

Obama did not campaign as a leftist - though the folks on the left wanted to believe that about him. Obama was never an enemy of the free market, as his gift of millions more customers to the private health insurance industry demonstrates. At a time when his own party was pushing at least for public option, and he might have gotten the votes, he chose instead to go with model that was hatched at Heritage and championed by people like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney.

Dodd Frank was Obama attempting to be the centrist he said in his campaign for Presidency he would be. He earned a reputation in the Senate by reaching across the aisle to work with people like Dick Lugar to get the people's work done. As far as I can see, that is what he attempted to do with both Health Care and Finance Reform.

What he managed to produce by taking this route disappointed the people on the far right because he went too far, the left because he didn't go far enough, and the center, because what little precious compromise he was able to win is being frustrated by the GOP playing obstructionist.
Agree that Obama never claimed to be a lefty, but he was pretty specific in his promise to rein in Wall St, and end the Bush tax cuts.

Given the need for a super majority these days, he gets a half pass, but we both know that keeping Geithner et. al. in charge was a slap in the face.

Conley
04-02-2012, 02:39 PM
I probably did not read back far enough to see the tit for tat context you mention, Conley. Apologies. I tend to come into the site, see a post i find interesting and dive deep.

If it is your point there is not that much difference between Bush's attitude toward Wall Street and Obama's, I'd say there is some validity there. Obama is not and has never been an enemy of Wall Street, as the advisers he chose does demonstrate. That said, he certainly could be a friend of Wall Street and business in general, without being for the Wall Street / Big Bank practices that nearly reduced the world economy to rubble. Mr. Bush, I think, has always believed that whatever is good for big business is good for America. I do not believe Mr. Obama has ever believed like that.

Obama did not campaign as a leftist - though the folks on the left wanted to believe that about him. Obama was never an enemy of the free market, as his gift of millions more customers to the private health insurance industry demonstrates. At a time when his own party was pushing at least for public option, and he might have gotten the votes, he chose instead to go with model that was hatched at Heritage and championed by people like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney.

Dodd Frank was Obama attempting to be the centrist he said in his campaign for Presidency he would be. He earned a reputation in the Senate by reaching across the aisle to work with people like Dick Lugar to get the people's work done. As far as I can see, that is what he attempted to do with both Health Care and Finance Reform.

What he managed to produce by taking this route disappointed the people on the far right because he went too far, the left because he didn't go far enough, and the center, because what little precious compromise he was able to win is being frustrated by the GOP playing obstructionist.

No need to apologize. I do the same thing and there aren't enough hours in the day to keep track of the discussions.

I agree that Obama didn't campaign as a leftist. He was very vague about many things, and of course he had almost no voting record to speak of. I didn't have a sense of him as being considered a great 'aisle-crosser' in the Senate, but I can see how over time (had he remained a senator) those bonds could have been formed. I expect many Senators are probably somewhat jealous of his meteoric rise. I think once he became a fundraising machine it became more clear how he would govern, but we can't pretend he didn't make many promises on the campaign trail which he quickly abandoned. I'll cite instances but I think you'll agree with me on that point?

Certainly, being a POTUS means criticism from all sides - even this thread is evidence of that, which some saying he is too right and others too leftist. Still, that has always been how it works and some Presidents are better at negotiating that path than others.

ramone
04-02-2012, 02:44 PM
I pegged obammy as a commie from the start. possibly I paid more attention than most. That's what he turned out to be, another welfare state endorser and a giver of other peoples money. I can't see where anybody gets he didn't campaign as a left winger.

keyser soze
04-02-2012, 02:57 PM
I keep forgetting to hit the 'reply with post' button!!

Dagny said

Obama's biggest sin, was filling his cabinet with conservatives.

Thus, the cozy little c. jerk w/Wall St.

Indeed. In many ways he is continuing Bush's policies and any changes attempted have been sidelined by requiring a super majority rather than a simple majority. Just say NO...an effort to manipulate an elections outcome. It's the game of sore losers with no ideas.

ramone
04-02-2012, 03:05 PM
I keep forgetting to hit the 'reply with post' button!!

Dagny said


Indeed. In many ways he is continuing Bush's policies and any changes attempted have been sidelined by requiring a super majority rather than a simple majority. Just say NO...an effort to manipulate an elections outcome. It's the game of sore losers with no ideas.

So name the conservatives in his cabinet. Lets discuss that issue, it is about as credible as the wicked witch of the north in the Wizard of OZ.

Mister D
04-02-2012, 03:07 PM
Yes, please name all of these conservatives. :laugh:

Peter1469
04-02-2012, 03:41 PM
50% is probably a high estimate, but many in the middle class are willing to pay more. Without digging for my links, I don't remember if Bush lowered cap gains. A simple raising of cap gains would alleviate the need for a marginal tax rate hike....something the ultra wealthy don't pay anyway.

If Bush's 10% tax bracket expires and it returns to 15%, you get a 50% increase.

dsolo802
04-02-2012, 03:51 PM
No need to apologize. I do the same thing and there aren't enough hours in the day to keep track of the discussions.I'd love to spend more time on the site. Alas, work, my wife, my life sometimes have other plans.


I agree that Obama didn't campaign as a leftist. He was very vague about many things,This is one of those areas where the MSM noise machine has prevailed: It is true that hope and change and other high sounding rhetoric would leave one to wonder what the hell he was talking about, but his campaign promises were sufficiently detailed that his performance against them could be objectively measured and tracked, and in fact since he was elected they have been. Of the 508 detailed campaign promises he made when he was running for office, to date, the scorecard is as follows: He has kept or arrived at a compromise position on 208 of his promises, he continues to make head way on another 147 promises, and his progress has stalled out on 67 others. Of the 508 campaign promises he made, he has out right broken 63. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

It seems to me, the President's rep for having been vague is the result of folks who couldn't stand the high sounding rhetoric and never got to the promises - and sheer partisan hype.


and of course he had almost no voting record to speak of. I didn't have a sense of him as being considered a great 'aisle-crosser' in the Senate, but I can see how over time (had he remained a senator) those bonds could have been formed.Though I would agree the total amount of time he had in the US Senate was not great, once again I have to disagree with those who say he didn't earn his reputation as an "aisle-crosser". Among a number of his achievements in the US Senate, I would have to include the following:

Co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, Tom Coburn, Barack Obama, Tom Carper, and John McCain, on April 6, 2006
Co-author with Dick Lugar of the "Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative," which President Bush signed into law
Introduced the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), with then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

I expect many Senators are probably somewhat jealous of his meteoric rise. I think once he became a fundraising machine it became more clear how he would govern, but we can't pretend he didn't make many promises on the campaign trail which he quickly abandoned. I'll cite instances but I think you'll agree with me on that point?I can agree that he broke 63 of his campaign promises, including some that relate to human rights that I find bitterly disappointing. That said, and all things considered, if we are critiquing his performance against the performance of past Presidents, I believe both the volume of his campaign pledges and his delivery hit rate against them place him in very good company.


Certainly, being a POTUS means criticism from all sides - even this thread is evidence of that, which some saying he is too right and others too leftist. Still, that has always been how it works and some Presidents are better at negotiating that path than others.I'm not complaining about the criticism, although I do think the criticism is significant.

People who govern from the right typically garner their criticism from the left. People who govern from left, get theirs from the right. When a President is hammered by the left and right, that says to me we are talking about a President who has attempted to steer a course right down the middle. For a President who said he would do just that, I think he and we are getting what he bargained for.

MMC
04-02-2012, 03:54 PM
Yes, please name all of these conservatives. :laugh:


As you can see then play is to ignore that such was ever said. Then change the tangent about how Obama is continuing more of Bush's policy. Why can't the truth be told about just how many conservatives are In Obama's cabinet?

ramone
04-02-2012, 04:06 PM
As you can see then play is to ignore that such was ever said. Then change the tangent about how Obama is continuing more of Bush's policy. Why can't the truth be told about just how many conservatives are In Obama's cabinet?

Well honestly, they are too busy brown nosing people they think might support them. It's a simple question with a simple answer. In the end they are SOL because the ones they have their head up the ass of are upright people and won't agree with them because they have some crap on their nose. Despite their warped thinking.

dsolo802
04-02-2012, 04:14 PM
As you can see then play is to ignore that such was ever said. Then change the tangent about how Obama is continuing more of Bush's policy. Why can't the truth be told about just how many conservatives are In Obama's cabinet?Hi MMC, is anyone assuming there is some kind of collective planning going on or a play book? "the play?" The issues we are trying to discuss may be very important, but my God, this isn't the Bourne Conspiracy, . . .right?

Somebody please tell a non-political joke.

Dagny
04-02-2012, 05:07 PM
If Bush's 10% tax bracket expires and it returns to 15%, you get a 50% increase.

I see. I mentioned that I wasn't going to pull up links to tax tables. When you said 'lower classes', I assumed you weren't only talking about the lowest marginal tax bracket.

I thought you meant across the board. In essence, the bottom bracket would disappear, and once again be lumped in w/those who earn up to 45k.

To my original point....many would be willing to pay another $500/yr, (for the lowest earners) if it meant countless millions in tax revenue from the top earners.

Especially when the cap gains, and dividend tax rates go up.

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 05:11 PM
Hi MMC, is anyone assuming there is some kind of collective planning going on or a play book? "the play?" The issues we are trying to discuss may be very important, but my God, this isn't the Bourne Conspiracy, . . .right?

Somebody please tell a non-political joke.


People are complaining about having their posts ignored. Some stuff is simply too stupid to address. Notice I said 'stuff' and not 'people'. LOL

Mainecoons
04-02-2012, 05:12 PM
Dagny, you have no basis for that statement and no right to declare that other people want to pour more money down the Federal rat hole. And you can't seem to grasp that allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire wouldn't even cover 25% of Obama's Deficits. Confiscating all income over a million wouldn't pay even one year of ObamaDeficits.

I'll spell it out for you again since you are a slow learner:

IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!

Dagny
04-02-2012, 06:41 PM
Dagny, you have no basis for that statement and no right to declare that other people want to pour more money down the Federal rat hole. And you can't seem to grasp that allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire wouldn't even cover 25% of Obama's Deficits. Confiscating all income over a million wouldn't pay even one year of ObamaDeficits.

I'll spell it out for you again since you are a slow learner:

IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!

Why won't republicans cut the military budget?

And you've really got to think in wider terms.

Raising cap gains....as well as increasing margins, and creating position limits...would go a long way toward curing many of the ills on Wall St.

If you bothered to read what I write, you'd see that my call was for a raising of cap gains, and potentially leaving the marginal rates alone.

The biggest predators don't even pay marginal tax rates.

Mainecoons
04-02-2012, 07:42 PM
First question is a good one. Getting out of the business of world policeman and stopping the constant foreign military adventurism which, BTW, has gone right on with the current administration, could save as much as those so called Bush tax cuts. Since most of those taxes are paid by the middle class and lower, would be a very good way to cut SPENDING instead of raising taxes.

Cap gains could go back to 20 percent. That was the level that it was put at during the Clinton administration and it seems sufficiently low not to damage revenues. That's worth another hundred billion a year.

Let's see, we're up to covering one third of the ObamaDeficits. OK, let's just rescind the tax cuts over $250K. That's worth another hundred billion.

Looks like we've covered about 40 percent of the ObamaDeficit. Where is the rest to come from?

IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID.

Tell ya what. You cut the budget of this largely worthless Federal government to cover the difference and I have no problem with your tax increases. Do we have a deal?

Dagny
04-02-2012, 07:59 PM
First question is a good one. Getting out of the business of world policeman and stopping the constant foreign military adventurism which, BTW, has gone right on with the current administration, could save as much as those so called Bush tax cuts. Since most of those taxes are paid by the middle class and lower, would be a very good way to cut SPENDING instead of raising taxes.

Cap gains could go back to 20 percent. That was the level that it was put at during the Clinton administration and it seems sufficiently low not to damage revenues. That's worth another hundred billion a year.

Let's see, we're up to covering one third of the ObamaDeficits. OK, let's just rescind the tax cuts over $250K. That's worth another hundred billion.

Looks like we've covered about 40 percent of the ObamaDeficit. Where is the rest to come from?

IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID.

Tell ya what. You cut the budget of this largely worthless Federal government to cover the difference and I have no problem with your tax increases. Do we have a deal?
Absolutely. I'm not against cutting wasteful spending. In another thread, I asked why Cantor/Boehner are cramming obsolete aircraft down the military's throat?

We can keep most of the programs that actually benefit Americans, if we stop these unfunded wars.

The future of our security is going to come via high tech, internet based defense. We've already proven that we can blow up the world 5 times over.

Yet...we're still falling prey to unwashed peasants on camels.

I'd like to know why we bring soldiers home from Iraq, but keep overpaid 'contractors' there?


Check the democracy thread for the answer.

dadakarma
04-02-2012, 08:46 PM
Absolutely. I'm not against cutting wasteful spending. In another thread, I asked why Cantor/Boehner are cramming obsolete aircraft down the military's throat?

We can keep most of the programs that actually benefit Americans, if we stop these unfunded wars.

The future of our security is going to come via high tech, internet based defense. We've already proven that we can blow up the world 5 times over.

Yet...we're still falling prey to unwashed peasants on camels.

I'd like to know why we bring soldiers home from Iraq, but keep overpaid 'contractors' there?


Check the democracy thread for the answer.

Because they're making billions on no-bid, cost-plus contracts that were in exchange for financing campaigns.

Peter1469
04-02-2012, 08:50 PM
Because they're making billions on no-bid, cost-plus contracts that were in exchange for financing campaigns.


Do you know what a no bid cost plus contract is?

I do government contracts. And there aren't many of those animals around.

Dagny
04-03-2012, 05:59 AM
Do you know what a no bid cost plus contract is?

I do government contracts. And there aren't many of those animals around.Not any more. Do any bids get rejected?

The issue is the cost to privatize every aspect of war, while borrowing money to fund same.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 10:18 AM
Not any more. Do any bids get rejected?

The issue is the cost to privatize every aspect of war, while borrowing money to fund same.

All that talk about 'support' for troops while they're being paid pennies while Halliburton grunts made three times the amount for the same job. Propaganda works. And pays.

No-bid contract means no competition. Shoo-in. Cost-plus means the price is open-ended. It invites waste and graft, both of which were demonstrated on steroids by Halliburton and others.

MMC
04-03-2012, 10:22 AM
Do you know what a no bid cost plus contract is?

I do government contracts. And there aren't many of those animals around.

How many Government Contracts do you do in a year Pete? Could you tells about the alleged shoo-ins?

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 10:33 AM
KBR's contract work in Baghdad included the faulty showers that electrocuted troops. That was a no-bid contract.

Dagny
04-03-2012, 10:38 AM
All that talk about 'support' for troops while they're being paid pennies while Halliburton grunts made three times the amount for the same job. Propaganda works. And pays.

No-bid contract means no competition. Shoo-in. Cost-plus means the price is open-ended. It invites waste and graft, both of which were demonstrated on steroids by Halliburton and others.Right now, kids who are due to finish their service, are considering their futures in the privatized military.

My SIL is talking about going to AFG, in order to earn 100k+ as a 'contractor' when he gets out.

Borrow money from China, to pay 20 times what we ought to for services?

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 10:42 AM
Right now, kids who are due to finish their service, are considering their futures in the privatized military.

My SIL is talking about going to AFG, in order to earn 100k+ as a 'contractor' when he gets out.

Borrow money from China, to pay 20 times what we ought to for services?

What do they care? That's the revolving door. Most of the guys running these defense contract corps came from govt or military or are otherwise tied in with someone who is - they have a huge stake in getting rich and then getting out. Crushing debt to China? That's down the road and won't affect them.

keyser soze
04-03-2012, 10:59 AM
Right now, kids who are due to finish their service, are considering their futures in the privatized military.

My SIL is talking about going to AFG, in order to earn 100k+ as a 'contractor' when he gets out.

Borrow money from China, to pay 20 times what we ought to for services?
Did you see this? It's about who owns America's debt.

http://mrctv.org/videos/chris-hayes-downplays-us-debt-china

Conley
04-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Did you see this? It's about who owns America's debt.

http://mrctv.org/videos/chris-hayes-downplays-us-debt-china


Good post Keyser. I'm tired of trying to explain this - it just won't die. It's the same kind of hysteria that went on here in the 80s when Japan was buying up American real estate. Most of our debt is money the government owes to ourselves, the American people.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Good post Keyser. I'm tired of trying to explain this - it just won't die. It's the same kind of hysteria that went on here in the 80s when Japan was buying up American real estate. Most of our debt is money the government owes to ourselves, the American people.

It isn't about the meme, though. It's about the fact that we (the nation) are still living beyond our means if we're financing defense with debt, regardless of who the creditor is.

ramone
04-03-2012, 11:15 AM
Do you know what a no bid cost plus contract is?

I do government contracts. And there aren't many of those animals around.

We wold all like to have cost plus contracts of any type. I'd be set for life if I could get a couple of gov. contracts that way. Unfortunately those only go out to the eco nuts who have fallen short of expectations and went belly up. I guess they got more money that way for the upper tier management. Kind of ironic that this administration wants to punish the viable people who make money and pay their bills while putting trillions of dollars into eco companies that fail. See anything wrong here.........?

Conley
04-03-2012, 11:16 AM
It isn't about the meme, though. It's about the fact that we (the nation) are still living beyond our means if we're financing defense with debt, regardless of who the creditor is.

There's no reason to spread misinformation. Everyone is aware we are spending way beyond our means.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 11:17 AM
There's no reason to spread misinformation. Everyone is aware we are spending way beyond our means.

Of our international creditors, our debt to China is larger than any of the others. That isn't misinformation.

Conley
04-03-2012, 11:21 AM
Of our international creditors, our debt to China is larger than any of the others. That isn't misinformation.

Yes, suggesting that China owns a large part of the United States is misinformation. You may not realize that others aren't as educated on this subject as you are.

The debt we owe to China is only slightly larger than that which we owe to Japan or the UK (and far less than the two combined). It's another Asian boogeyman fallacy and I'm surprised to see someone like you supporting it.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 11:26 AM
Yes, suggesting that China owns a large part of the United States is misinformation. You may not realize that others aren't as educated on this subject as you are.

The debt we owe to China is only slightly larger than that which we owe to Japan or the UK (and far less than the two combined). It's another Asian boogeyman fallacy and I'm surprised to see someone like you supporting it.

I'm not supporting any boogeyman or meme.

Conley
04-03-2012, 11:27 AM
And you thought Muslims, gays, and illegal immigrants from Mexico (though not from Canada) were enough to keep busy xenophobia-pandering campaigns going this election season. But China is right there in the running.

According to Jeff Yang, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, China is an easy target for politicians on both sides.

Yang and NPR host Jackie Lyden discussed several China-bashing political ads, including a spot run by Citizens United Against Government Waste that focuses on a professor. It's the year 2030. He's giving a lecture in Chinese about too much spending and how that caused the downfall of the United States. This ad is in Chinese, and the tone is ominous. The only English spoken is this: You can change the future. You have to. Join Citizens Against Government Waste to stop the spending that is bankrupting America. The premise was that the Chinese now own Americans' debt. and Americans work for China.

http://newamericandimensions.com/drupal/content/new-election-boogeyman-china

Mister D
04-03-2012, 11:27 AM
Conley is right.

Conley
04-03-2012, 11:27 AM
I'm not supporting any boogeyman or meme.

Good, I'm glad. :) Thank you.

Dagny
04-03-2012, 01:59 PM
Good, I'm glad. :) Thank you.
Expanding upon that video, if we're funding these wars via raiding the SSI coffers, where, praytell, are we going to get the money to fund the liabilities for SS in the future?

Borrow it?

And making the assertion that addressing the borrowing of monies to pay private contractors is 'spreading lies'....is beneath you.

Mister D
04-03-2012, 02:06 PM
trouble in paradise!? :shocked:

Conley
04-03-2012, 02:08 PM
Expanding upon that video, if we're funding these wars via raiding the SSI coffers, where, praytell, are we going to get the money to fund the liabilities for SS in the future?

Borrow it?

And making the assertion that addressing the borrowing of monies to pay private contractors is 'spreading lies'....is beneath you.

That's not at all what I said. You're missing a few steps there.

Dagny
04-03-2012, 02:11 PM
That's not at all what I said. You're missing a few steps there.Oh...I thought I read it through? I was the one who addressed the borrowing of money for funding the MIC.

Dagny
04-03-2012, 02:12 PM
Nevertheless....how are we going to fund SSI in the future, if your assertion is that using that money now, isn't 'borrowing'?

Mister D
04-03-2012, 02:16 PM
Who are you arguing with?

Conley
04-03-2012, 02:17 PM
Oh...I thought I read it through? I was the one who addressed the borrowing of money for funding the MIC.

Your rebuttal on this page fails to mention China, which was in your original post and the point I expanded on after Keyser highlighted it. Had you not brought up China and had Keyser not pointed it out, I wouldn't have pursued it.

Conley
04-03-2012, 02:17 PM
Nevertheless....how are we going to fund SSI in the future, if your assertion is that using that money now, isn't 'borrowing'?

I assume this is directed at me but I've never asserted that using money from SSI isn't borrowing.

MMC
04-03-2012, 03:23 PM
And you thought Muslims, gays, and illegal immigrants from Mexico (though not from Canada) were enough to keep busy xenophobia-pandering campaigns going this election season. But China is right there in the running.

According to Jeff Yang, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, China is an easy target for politicians on both sides.

Yang and NPR host Jackie Lyden discussed several China-bashing political ads, including a spot run by Citizens United Against Government Waste that focuses on a professor. It's the year 2030. He's giving a lecture in Chinese about too much spending and how that caused the downfall of the United States. This ad is in Chinese, and the tone is ominous. The only English spoken is this: You can change the future. You have to. Join Citizens Against Government Waste to stop the spending that is bankrupting America. The premise was that the Chinese now own Americans' debt. and Americans work for China.

http://newamericandimensions.com/drupal/content/new-election-boogeyman-china

:greatjob:

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 06:27 PM
Tea Party = Koch
This is a snippet from the attached report (below).


When the Koch-created Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two organizations—
FreedomWorks and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—David
Koch remained chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the
organization continues to receive funding from the Koch brothers. The Americans
for Prosperity Foundation and its sister organization, Americans for Prosperity,
work to educate and mobilize conservatives on a range of issues, from the budget
to health care and workers’ rights.

Americans for Prosperity holds rallies and events across the nation and spends millions
of dollars on television advertising and voter mobilization efforts. Last year, it
spent roughly $45 million for the midterm elections.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/koch_brothers.pdf

Mister D
04-03-2012, 06:30 PM
Well I mean c'mon! Americanprogressaction.org said so.

ramone
04-03-2012, 06:36 PM
Well I mean c'mon! Americanprogressaction.org said so.

You're wasting valuable time on these imbeciles D, you can't argue with an idiot. No need to try.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 06:52 PM
From the Introduction and Summary (warning: might be TOO LONG for some. LOL):


The Koch brothers, whose wealth, when combined, is the fourth highest in the
nation, run one of the largest private companies in the country. Koch Industries
is involved in industries ranging from oil and gas, refining and chemicals, minerals,
fertilizers, forestry, consumer products, polymers and fibers, and ranching.
They have operations in 45 states.

The Koch brothers use their considerable wealth to bankroll the right wing,
including the Tea Party. This serves the purpose of furthering not only their
right-wing ideology but also their bottom line. Koch Industries has a lot to gain
from gutting government oversight and electing candidates who oppose government
regulation, especially in the oil-and-gas industry.

Chances are the Koch brothers are part of any recent right-wing attack as of
late as they have fought health reform, Wall Street reform, collective bargaining
rights, and efforts to curb climate change, to name just a few.

Their main advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, has chapters in 32 states and
spent $45 million in the last election, predominantly to help elect Republicans.

The Kochs donated directly to 62 of the 87 members of the House GOP
freshman class.

The Kochs are not going away. In fact, they have already pledged to raise
$88 million for the 2012 election and have started scheduling events for
potential Republican presidential candidates.

Mister D
04-03-2012, 06:54 PM
I don't know why dada continues to post rabidly partisan opinion pieces as if they are thought provoking.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 07:01 PM
I don't know why dada continues to post rabidly partisan opinion pieces as if they are thought provoking.

Answer: it's a political message board. ;)

ramone
04-03-2012, 07:04 PM
From the Introduction and Summary (warning: might be TOO LONG for some. LOL):

Anything you write is too long for me, reason being that it contains no information that could be debatable. Sorry, but the truth hurts I suppose. Deal with it.

Mister D
04-03-2012, 07:06 PM
Answer: it's a political message board. ;)

Wouldn't you want to actually influence someone?

ramone
04-03-2012, 07:22 PM
I don't know why dada continues to post rabidly partisan opinion pieces as if they are thought provoking.

Probably are for someone with no thought process beyond watching MSNBC or reading media matters. It is very thought provoking for them. Very little information and swayed in their favor so there is no need to think. See what I'm talking about here?

Mister D
04-03-2012, 08:20 PM
Probably are for someone with no thought process beyond watching MSNBC or reading media matters. It is very thought provoking for them. Very little information and swayed in their favor so there is no need to think. See what I'm talking about here?

Dada seems like the kind of person who will believe almost anything you tell her as long as she can reconcile it with her preconceptions.

keyser soze
04-03-2012, 08:46 PM
Lmao!!!

ramone
04-03-2012, 08:54 PM
Lmao!!!

Why, you smoke too much dope or something? Only reason I can see that somebody would laugh at themselves and their complete lack of knowledge of anything. That wouldn't include your side kicks who are just as ignorant of issues as you are. They taught you well at PH didn't they? Kinda funny when you think about it, your little clicks are so important to you, yet you come here and disrupt the forum. Cause infighting, make nothing substantial in the way of constructive conversation. Add to that the back and forth flag waving and the high fives over nothing and you really aren't much in the way of trolls. I could school you some but I'm pretty sure you are way too stupid to grasp the concept. A real troll takes some time to get in with the crowd, you gang banged in here like a fart from a fat chick in a small area. Not so well done, just saying.

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 09:01 PM
Pages 15 and 16 list all the Republican members of congress and senators who received money from Koch, along with the amount.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/koch_brothers.pdf

Thanks for all the bumps, you guys! :grin:

keyser soze
04-03-2012, 09:05 PM
I laugh because of you're idiotic efforts to troll! Get a life for pete's sake.

keyser soze
04-03-2012, 09:06 PM
Pages 15 and 16 list all the Republican members of congress and senators who received money from Koch, along with the amount.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/pdf/koch_brothers.pdf

Thanks for all the bumps, you guys! :grin:
Wow Dada that's a keeper...Thanks!

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 09:07 PM
Wow Dada that's a keeper...Thanks!

Isn't it great? I bookmarked that baby.

ramone
04-03-2012, 09:31 PM
I laugh because of you're idiotic efforts to troll! Get a life for pete's sake.

Really, are you going down on each other now because you seem to be on the same page. Your efforts to troll are almost pathetic, really they are. How about a contest, troll abilities, and all that other shit. You up for it, I don't think you can keep up.

ramone
04-03-2012, 09:33 PM
You have big mouths but I don't think you have the balls. So what say you big time trolls?

ramone
04-03-2012, 09:42 PM
Shut up or put up, I don't have time for pussies. What will it be, I get to pick the place and the message tough guys/lesbians. Get your VERY best proxy and lock and load.

keyser soze
04-03-2012, 09:56 PM
LMAO!!! OMG you're funny! Laughing is good for me, Thanks!!

ramone
04-03-2012, 09:59 PM
Glad I could make you smile. Now are your ready to do a .gov site big troll. I will, how about you?

ramone
04-03-2012, 10:03 PM
zzzzz You do use a paid proxy don't you? I use metropipe, how about you. Surely you pay for your fun don't you, or do you just change your settings in FF, or use TOR, very weak if you do, No matter, the game is on. Lets play. :)

dadakarma
04-03-2012, 10:05 PM
LMAO!!! OMG you're funny! Laughing is good for me, Thanks!!

Slow down, Soze, he thinks you're hitting on him. :love7:

ramone
04-03-2012, 10:11 PM
If I wanted some shriveled up shit I'd go to the rest home. probably see your skank ass there sitting in a chair drool running down your face. Nothing personal, just not into that shit.

I see there are no takers on my offer, now if you will excuse me. I have to get some sleep so I can support you liberals gibs me dat programs with my taxes.

Dagny
04-04-2012, 07:04 AM
I assume this is directed at me but I've never asserted that using money from SSI isn't borrowing.
The video relies on this technicality to attempt to prove that we aren't borrowing that much from China.

Using SSI money isn't borrowing. The money isn't paid back with interest. In fact, it isn't paid back. It's stealing from the taxpayer, to fund.....whatever.

My first post made no mention of where the money is borrowed from

My next post mentioned China.

You are now falling prey to the methods of your nucleus here, who would rather spend pages arguing about definitions, as opposed to delving into the issue.

We are paying private contractors upwards of 20 times...or more....what we pay our military.
We don't have the money to do so.


Do you happen to have any comment about that, or would you prefer to debate the definition of....lets say...."Utopia"?

Or "corporatism"?

Or argue over a pie chart?

Dagny
04-04-2012, 07:06 AM
LMAO!!! OMG you're funny! Laughing is good for me, Thanks!!
I've learned to avoid coming here while drinking a beverage! Some of this stuff is classic.

keyser soze
04-04-2012, 08:49 AM
Slow down, Soze, he thinks you're hitting on him. :love7:
OMG!!! : LMAO...Thanks for my morning laugh!

keyser soze
04-04-2012, 08:56 AM
I've learned to avoid coming here while drinking a beverage! Some of this stuff is classic.

I don't come here while drinking a beverage... :0) The trolling is idiotic and funny and persistent. However, now that you mention it there is a similarity to the behavior by some males and why I don't go to bars.

MMC
04-04-2012, 09:07 AM
Eh.....what goes around, comes around. Nothing new there!

dadakarma
04-05-2012, 10:37 AM
Things go better WITHOUT Koch. :)


Score one for the good guys: After being pressured by Color of Change and other progressive groups, Coca-Cola has left ALEC — the cynical corporate coalition that has pushed a bevy of anti-democratic, anti-middle class, and anti-consumer initiatives.


Now that Coke's come around, next up is Walmart. Their response on the ALEC issue was equivocal and unacceptable. And the issue needs to be raised directly and firmly with the other companies that back the organization — a list that includes AT&T, Bayer, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, Pfizer, and UPS.




You and more than 85,000 Color Of Change members have called on corporations to stop supporting the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) because of its role in voter suppression.


We contacted Coca-Cola to make sure they understand that through their membership in ALEC, they are supporting racially-discriminatory voter ID laws. ... They told us they recognize the importance of voting rights but claimed that they weren't responsible for ALEC's voter ID legislation.


http://crooksandliars.com/richard-rj-eskow/good-guys-win-alec-things-go-bett

keyser soze
04-05-2012, 03:57 PM
I saw that...good news!

dadakarma
04-05-2012, 03:57 PM
I saw that...good news!

It's all over the 'net. :)

keyser soze
04-05-2012, 04:01 PM
I've learned to avoid coming here while drinking a beverage! Some of this stuff is classic.
OH...now I understand...it saves your computer screen! Duh...sleep is a wonderful thing for the brain. :0)

Alias
04-05-2012, 04:01 PM
The Koch brothers gave 10 million to charity last year. How much did the union President in Wisconsin give?

dadakarma
04-06-2012, 10:52 AM
:applause:

Kraft ditches ALEC....


Following Coca-Cola (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/04/458591/progressive-movement-compels-coca-cola-to-pull-support-from-alec-over-voter-suppression-efforts/) and PepsiCo (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/05/458781/pepsico-ends-partnership-with-right-wing-front-group-alec/), tonight Kraft became the third major corporation to announce its departure from the right-wing business front group ALEC.

Yesterday, Kraft told NPR that “it was keeping its membership (http://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/150013705/boycotts-hitting-group-behind-stand-your-ground) in ALEC.” But by this evening, Kraft reversed its position, announcing it would no longer support ALEC. The company has issued the following statement (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/usa-coke-alec-idUKL2E8F54P120120405):
We belong to many external groups, including ALEC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes growth and fiscal responsibility.


ALEC covers numerous issues but our involvement has been strictly limited to discussions about economic growth and development, transportation and tax policy. We did not participate in meetings or conversations related to other issues.


Our membership in ALEC expires this spring and for a number of reasons, including limited resources, we have made the decision not to renew.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/05/459380/kraft-becomes-third-corporation-to-drop-alec/