PDA

View Full Version : Paul Ryan Calls For Increasing Tax on Middle Class



Pendragon
09-20-2011, 09:07 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/18/321875/paul-ryan-calls-for-increasing-taxes-on-middle-class-but-dismisses-millionaires-tax-as-class-warfare/

Paul Ryan dares to attack our middle class without recollection that these are the individuals who made this country the glorious beacon it is today!

This is the true class warfare!




Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) resumed his attacks on President Obama’s economic policy Sunday morning, suggesting that the President’s plan to tax millionaires’ profits from capital gains in order to fund job creation efforts constitutes “class warfare".

Ironically, Ryan was simultaneously calling for an end to the current temporary tax cuts, which would raise taxes by 50 percent on those making less than $106,000. While launching accusations of “class warfare,” Ryan is the one who would prefer that people with less money pay more, while those with more money keep more.

Pendragon
09-20-2011, 09:59 AM
Having a series of tax brackets is nothing new and yet Obama is denounced for attempting to fix our deficit by having all pay their fair share.

As he himself has stated it is not class warfare, it is simple math!

Mister D
09-20-2011, 10:05 AM
Having a series of tax brackets is nothing new and yet Obama is denounced for attempting to fix our deficit by having all pay their fair share.

As he himself has stated it is not class warfare, it is simple math!


What is a "fair share"?

Pendragon
09-20-2011, 10:17 AM
A fair share is a general rate closer in approximation to that which the lower earners pay.

Most individuals do not have a problem with the poor paying a lower percentage of their income.

Why should the most wealthy pay a smaller percentage than the middle class?

The fifteen percent capital gains tax is the crux of the problem.

Mister D
09-20-2011, 10:22 AM
A fair share is a general rate closer in approximation to that which the lower earners pay.

Most individuals do not have a problem with the poor paying a lower percentage of their income.

Why should the most wealthy pay a smaller percentage than the middle class?

The fifteen percent capital gains tax is the crux of the problem.


If the math is so simple I'd expect you to be able to tell me what a fair percentage is. Do you know? Or are just regurgitating talking points like a good sheeple?

Capital gains is a tax on money that has already been taxed. It's somewhat problematic to compare income tax (which nearly half of Americans do not pay, BTW) to the capital gains tax.

Conley
09-20-2011, 10:27 AM
How is Capital Gains a tax on money that has already been taxed?

Mister D
09-20-2011, 10:35 AM
How is Capital Gains a tax on money that has already been taxed?


If I decide to invest money in something today those funds are coming out of my net pay. It's not deferred income. IOW, it's not like a 401K that will be taxed later. I've already paid fed, state, and FICA on those earnings. Should I pay 35% on my return too? What the hell is the point of investing then? The sheeple tend to think that only the mega rich pay capital gains. Anyone who makes a return on their investments pays capital gains tax.

Pendragon
09-20-2011, 10:55 AM
How is Capital Gains a tax on money that has already been taxed?


If I decide to invest money in something today those funds are coming out of my net pay. It's not deferred income. IOW, it's not like a 401K that will be taxed later. I've already paid fed, state, and FICA on those earnings. Should I pay 35% on my return too? What the hell is the point of investing then? The sheeple tend to think that only the mega rich pay capital gains. Anyone who makes a return on their investments pays capital gains tax.


If you buy a home which appreciates and subsequently sell it, the income is taxed at the normal rate. The same goes for many other kinds of earnings. Income is income and there should not be any huge tax break simply because it is a stock transaction. The whole enterprise is to transfer money into the hands of the already wealthy, and that is why we have continued stock market bubbles because of the overvaluation.

In any event the idea is not to tax the people who make a piddling via capital gains, the point is to tax those who make the majority of their income as capital gains. Do you honestly believe that those who make millions by trading should pay on average fifteen percent or less? How is that just?

Mister D
09-20-2011, 11:11 AM
How is Capital Gains a tax on money that has already been taxed?


If I decide to invest money in something today those funds are coming out of my net pay. It's not deferred income. IOW, it's not like a 401K that will be taxed later. I've already paid fed, state, and FICA on those earnings. Should I pay 35% on my return too? What the hell is the point of investing then? The sheeple tend to think that only the mega rich pay capital gains. Anyone who makes a return on their investments pays capital gains tax.


If you buy a home which appreciates and subsequently sell it, the income is taxed at the normal rate. The same goes for many other kinds of earnings. Income is income and there should not be any huge tax break simply because it is a stock transaction. The whole enterprise is to transfer money into the hands of the already wealthy, and that is why we have continued stock market bubbles because of the overvaluation.

In any event the idea is not to tax the people who make a piddling via capital gains, the point is to tax those who make the majority of their income as capital gains. Do you honestly believe that those who make millions by trading should pay on average fifteen percent or less? How is that just?


What "huge tax break"? Why is it a "break"? You will pay capital gains on your house sale, Pen. What % is fair? Should the government get 15% of your return? 30%? 50%? Speak up. What you claimed is that someone (who?) is not paying their "fair share". No, that's not true. BO gave an obscenely populist and demagogic speech during which he made those claims. You're just parroting the talking points. BAAAAAHHH. It was a campaign speech, Pen, and BO is going after the wealthy because his approval rating is in the toilet. Prior to this, BO was convinced that you simply do not raise taxes during a recession. What changed? The recession is still here...

Anyway, what does "fair" mean? This is the second time I've asked. If you don't know just say so.

Again, I pay capital gains, Pen. I know a lot of people who pay capital gains tax. You seem stuck on the notion that only the very wealthy pay this tax.

Conley
09-20-2011, 11:12 AM
How is Capital Gains a tax on money that has already been taxed?


If I decide to invest money in something today those funds are coming out of my net pay. It's not deferred income. IOW, it's not like a 401K that will be taxed later. I've already paid fed, state, and FICA on those earnings. Should I pay 35% on my return too? What the hell is the point of investing then? The sheeple tend to think that only the mega rich pay capital gains. Anyone who makes a return on their investments pays capital gains tax.


I dunno, I mean saying what the heck is the point of investing because you pay taxes on it doesn't seem like a reason to not invest. It is like a 401k in that you have to pay taxes once you withdraw right? It's not like you get annually taxed 35% on the Capital Gains. Once you cash it out you can pay taxes at whatever your rate is. Just like when you withdraw from a 401k you pay taxes on that. Sorry if I am misunderstanding...that is how I think of it.

Conley
09-20-2011, 11:18 AM
Check this out:

The taxpayers with the top 400 incomes paid an average rate of 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the most recent update of the Internal Revenue Service, which issues an annual report on the top 400 taxpayers.

I'm willing to bet that's lower than a lot of people on here.

"
The bulk of hedge fund managers’ income is typically considered "carried interest" -- that is, their share of profits from the funds they manage. When a fund has capital gains and those gains flow to the manager, they are taxed as a capital gain, not as ordinary income.

The tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, rather than the 35 percent on compensation that would be paid by everyone else, including other types of Wall Street managers. (The taxpayers with the top 400 incomes paid an average rate of 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the most recent update of the Internal Revenue Service, which issues an annual report on the top 400 taxpayers.)

Hedge fund managers don't necessarily pay even 15 percent, however. They can pay no current income tax at all, by leaving their carried interest money in the hedge fund and deferring the tax bill to a later date -- even decades later -- when they eventually cash out of the fund."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/22/sherrod-brown/sen-sherrod-brown-says-wall-street-hedge-fund-mana/

I mean you have to admit that does seem like a loophole and a good chunk of change too.

Mister D
09-20-2011, 11:20 AM
How is Capital Gains a tax on money that has already been taxed?


If I decide to invest money in something today those funds are coming out of my net pay. It's not deferred income. IOW, it's not like a 401K that will be taxed later. I've already paid fed, state, and FICA on those earnings. Should I pay 35% on my return too? What the hell is the point of investing then? The sheeple tend to think that only the mega rich pay capital gains. Anyone who makes a return on their investments pays capital gains tax.


I dunno, I mean saying what the heck is the point of investing because you pay taxes on it doesn't seem like a reason to not invest. It is like a 401k in that you have to pay taxes once you withdraw right? It's not like you get annually taxed 35% on the Capital Gains. Once you cash it out you can pay taxes at whatever your rate is. Just like when you withdraw from a 401k you pay taxes on that. Sorry if I am misunderstanding...that is how I think of it.


But that's not what I said. I'm not objecting to the CG in principle. Right, it's not like I get taxed at 35% on my capital gains but what do you think the demagogue in chief has in mind? What is all this vague talk of a "fair share"? What does that mean? Does it mean anything? Or is this just BO's way of playing on peoples' resentments and fears?

Mister D
09-20-2011, 11:25 AM
Check this out:

The taxpayers with the top 400 incomes paid an average rate of 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the most recent update of the Internal Revenue Service, which issues an annual report on the top 400 taxpayers.

I'm willing to bet that's lower than a lot of people on here.

"
The bulk of hedge fund managers’ income is typically considered "carried interest" -- that is, their share of profits from the funds they manage. When a fund has capital gains and those gains flow to the manager, they are taxed as a capital gain, not as ordinary income.

The tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, rather than the 35 percent on compensation that would be paid by everyone else, including other types of Wall Street managers. (The taxpayers with the top 400 incomes paid an average rate of 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the most recent update of the Internal Revenue Service, which issues an annual report on the top 400 taxpayers.)

Hedge fund managers don't necessarily pay even 15 percent, however. They can pay no current income tax at all, by leaving their carried interest money in the hedge fund and deferring the tax bill to a later date -- even decades later -- when they eventually cash out of the fund."

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/22/sherrod-brown/sen-sherrod-brown-says-wall-street-hedge-fund-mana/

I mean you have to admit that does seem like a loophole and a good chunk of change too.


My point is that is capital gains is not paid by 400 people. It's paid by a large segment of the population. Have you ever invested, Conley? Consider this: you pay taxes on the funds you invest, you take all the risk, you could lose everything but perchance you make a profit Uncle Sam wants...how much? I can deal with 15%. When it reaches 35-40% it seems less and less worthwhile.

Conley
09-20-2011, 11:28 AM
Yeah, I've paid short term gains and long term as well. It's only the long term (at least as I remember) that is 15%. Maybe that has changed.

Regardless of that, don't you think it's odd that those who make the most pay the smallest percentage?

Mister D
09-20-2011, 11:35 AM
Yeah, I've paid short term gains and long term as well. It's only the long term (at least as I remember) that is 15%. Maybe that has changed.

Regardless of that, don't you think it's odd that those who make the most pay the smallest percentage?


If the majority of someone's earnings are in interest etc. then I have no problem with increasing their rates. I have two issues here:

1. The fact that the sheeple don't realize that this affects a lot more people than the "top 400". It affects people you know. Likely, lots of them.

2. This is a crass and transparent political ploy. Obama had made these annuncements about a "fair share" (which he won't get specific on because the stock market would collapse around his ears) to whip the sdheeple into a frenzy so they will vote for him. It will do nothing to solve our deficit problem.

Conley
09-20-2011, 11:48 AM
Well, yes Obama is full of hot air. I'm ignoring that for the time being.

I agree that there are a lot more than 400 people at stake here. Somewhere between the 400 mentioned by the IRS and the individual investors you are referring to, like you and me and other people of modest means there are likely a lot of people who are paying a lowered rate. It would definitely help our problems with the deficit if those individuals contributed an amount closer to the bracket in which they reside.

It would not be difficult at all to identify these people. Heck you could even make it as simple as for those who are already paying xx rate they do not pay the 35% CG...keep them at 15%. For those that are in the 35% bracket and paying less than 35%, bump them up to the 35% where they reside. I think the CEOs who pay 35% of their salaries would be fine with seeing Wall Streeters paying the same amount.

Look I am not at all in favor of raising taxes but I do think we've got a fiscal crisis on our hands and at some point we need to make tough choices or accept that this country is doomed to failure. We all have to make sacrifices.

Mister D
09-20-2011, 12:00 PM
Well, yes Obama is full of hot air. I'm ignoring that for the time being.

I agree that there are a lot more than 400 people at stake here. Somewhere between the 400 mentioned by the IRS and the individual investors you are referring to, like you and me and other people of modest means there are likely a lot of people who are paying a lowered rate. It would definitely help our problems with the deficit if those individuals contributed an amount closer to the bracket in which they reside.

It would not be difficult at all to identify these people. Heck you could even make it as simple as for those who are already paying xx rate they do not pay the 35% CG...keep them at 15%. For those that are in the 35% bracket and paying less than 35%, bump them up to the 35% where they reside. I think the CEOs who pay 35% of their salaries would be fine with seeing Wall Streeters paying the same amount.

Look I am not at all in favor of raising taxes but I do think we've got a fiscal crisis on our hands and at some point we need to make tough choices or accept that this country is doomed to failure. We all have to make sacrifices.


I don't disagree but a blanket raising of the capital gains tax isn't a good idea much less a fair one, IMO. Here we have Pen championing the middle class but has it occured to him that a large segment of the middle class pays capital gains tax? Now with regard to those who are making money hand over fist through interest and returns on their investments I don't object to bring them up to their current rates for income tax. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the way the debate is conducted but I can accept that. As for the fiscal crisis, the problem is that we spend too much money. It's really that simple. Without a substantial cut in spending we're wasting our breath.

The idea that raising the tax rates on the rich will solve our problems is 100% BS. In that respect, Paul Ryan is correct. This class warfare and a cynical ploy by Obama to shore up his crappy approval rating going into the next election. Yes, I think that loophole needs fixing. Heck, maybe it's even outrageous but so is this behavior on the part of an American President. I'll give you the last word O'Reilly style. ;)

Conley
09-20-2011, 12:03 PM
:D

Well there's no need to end the discussion unless you want to. I agree a blanket raising of the capital gains tax is wrong, that's why I made the proposition I did before.

While I agree that in the past the problem was that we are spending too much, and that we are still doing that, I believe it has gotten past the point where we can solve our problems just by cutting programs. Maybe I'm wrong but in my mind the government has to get more income as well as cut services. Now the problem is that we cannot trust the government to spend the money properly (for example paying down the debt, which is where more and more of our taxes go toward with the compounding interest and what not).

Conley
09-20-2011, 12:03 PM
And, let's not even kid. Obama is a lying phony. If he really wanted to increase the Capital Gains tax he could have when he came into office and had the Democrat controlled Congress. He didn't care...now he is pandering to his base and there is no way in heck that the GOP Congress would ever allow him to increase taxes. So the argument is moot, I am just speaking from a standpoint of what I wish would happen. Obama is not going to make it happen and he's already lost reelection as far as I'm concerned.

Elibe
09-20-2011, 01:45 PM
not many obama fans on here

Mister D
09-20-2011, 01:46 PM
not many obama fans on here


On the forum or in the country? :D What do you like about Obama?

Conley
09-20-2011, 01:46 PM
There aren't many reasons to be a fan IMO. Can you name some? I'm drawing a blank.

Mister D
09-20-2011, 01:47 PM
There aren't many reasons to be a fan IMO. Can you name some? I'm drawing a blank.


He's not a Repiublican? :-\

Conley
09-20-2011, 01:49 PM
There aren't many reasons to be a fan IMO. Can you name some? I'm drawing a blank.


He's not a Repiublican? :-\


:D He gets points for that but then loses them because he's a Dem.

Mister D
09-20-2011, 01:56 PM
There aren't many reasons to be a fan IMO. Can you name some? I'm drawing a blank.


He's not a Repiublican? :-\


:D He gets points for that but then loses them because he's a Dem.


Good one. ;D

Elibe
09-20-2011, 05:32 PM
not many obama fans on here


On the forum or in the country? :D What do you like about Obama?


well for starters i think he is a good man

he makes mistakes like all of us just like bush did too

Conley
09-20-2011, 05:54 PM
He may be a good person, I've never met him so I really couldn't say.

What is obvious though is that he has no idea how to get us out of the mess we're in. Even worse, he's had a hand in making things tougher. It's someone else's turn.

Mister D
09-20-2011, 06:35 PM
not many obama fans on here


On the forum or in the country? :D What do you like about Obama?


well for starters i think he is a good man

he makes mistakes like all of us just like bush did too


I'm not fond of politicians generally. I do think Bush is a good man although I did not support some of his policies and I cringe at parts of his worldview. I think our system breeds and/or attracts narcissistic types and I think Obama is one of them.

Conley
09-20-2011, 06:39 PM
Yeah, I think it definitely does.

wingrider
09-21-2011, 12:20 AM
what I would like to know is why we the tax payers have to continually bail out the spenders in DC.. really, is it our fault that those fools can't control their impulses? it seems to me it is almost time for a tax revolt until these idiots get their house in order

MMC
09-21-2011, 08:13 AM
what I would like to know is why we the tax payers have to continually bail out the spenders in DC.. really, is it our fault that those fools can't control their impulses? it seems to me it is almost time for a tax revolt until these idiots get their house in order


Unfortunately I hate saying this.....but it is time for Violence. Violence against these politicians. They will want to debate and talk for another 150 yrs and not do a damn thing. The time for talking is thru. They have stolen from this Country. Stolen from every man woman and child. Only to pump themselves up as an Aristocracy. They have lied and decieved an entire nation of people, and they all did it knowing they were doing it. Politicians for 20yrs or longer, lifetime Appointments for Judges, no solutions. Gridlock turning into Deadlock. Its not just the Pols either Add in that World of Media. Never getting answers. Always controlling.....the talk. Now letting the Media drive whatever issue.

Needs to go back to like in the beginning. Pols got attacked. Food thrown at them. Not allowed to walk around in public freely with ridicule and or scorn. Threats and violence were used. Newspapers and Written content was put out slandering candidates. Including their families. Nothing is being made difficut for any of them. All know they have sold out. Left right center.....it doesn't matter anymore. One thing is for sure if people keep letting them do what they have done and are doing. Then nothing will ever change. What, Vote in the next one to carry on continuing policy?

Conley
09-21-2011, 08:26 AM
what I would like to know is why we the tax payers have to continually bail out the spenders in DC.. really, is it our fault that those fools can't control their impulses? it seems to me it is almost time for a tax revolt until these idiots get their house in order


I don't think of these things as new taxes, I look at them as closing loopholes.

Now the problem is that any money received from these taxes will not go toward getting us out of debt, it will go toward more pork and bs. So to be clear I am speaking from an idealistic standpoint...reality is the tax code will not be changed and if it did Obama would put the money towards union workers.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 08:27 AM
what I would like to know is why we the tax payers have to continually bail out the spenders in DC.. really, is it our fault that those fools can't control their impulses? it seems to me it is almost time for a tax revolt until these idiots get their house in order


Unfortunately I hate saying this.....but it is time for Violence. Violence against these politicians. They will want to debate and talk for another 150 yrs and not do a damn thing. The time for talking is thru. They have stolen from this Country. Stolen from every man woman and child. Only to pump themselves up as an Aristocracy. They have lied and decieved an entire nation of people, and they all did it knowing they were doing it. Politicians for 20yrs or longer, lifetime Appointments for Judges, no solutions. Gridlock turning into Deadlock. Its not just the Pols either Add in that World of Media. Never getting answers. Always controlling.....the talk. Now letting the Media drive whatever issue.

Needs to go back to like in the beginning. Pols got attacked. Food thrown at them. Not allowed to walk around in public freely with ridicule and or scorn. Threats and violence were used. Newspapers and Written content was put out slandering candidates. Including their families. Nothing is being made difficut for any of them. All know they have sold out. Left right center.....it doesn't matter anymore. One thing is for sure if people keep letting them do what they have done and are doing. Then nothing will ever change. What, Vote in the next one to carry on continuing policy?


Wow but, yeah, I can't disagree that we have gotten way too complacent and too tolerant. We expect so little from each other why would we expect more from our pols?

Conley
09-21-2011, 08:29 AM
what I would like to know is why we the tax payers have to continually bail out the spenders in DC.. really, is it our fault that those fools can't control their impulses? it seems to me it is almost time for a tax revolt until these idiots get their house in order


Unfortunately I hate saying this.....but it is time for Violence. Violence against these politicians. They will want to debate and talk for another 150 yrs and not do a damn thing. The time for talking is thru. They have stolen from this Country. Stolen from every man woman and child. Only to pump themselves up as an Aristocracy. They have lied and decieved an entire nation of people, and they all did it knowing they were doing it. Politicians for 20yrs or longer, lifetime Appointments for Judges, no solutions. Gridlock turning into Deadlock. Its not just the Pols either Add in that World of Media. Never getting answers. Always controlling.....the talk. Now letting the Media drive whatever issue.

Needs to go back to like in the beginning. Pols got attacked. Food thrown at them. Not allowed to walk around in public freely with ridicule and or scorn. Threats and violence were used. Newspapers and Written content was put out slandering candidates. Including their families. Nothing is being made difficut for any of them. All know they have sold out. Left right center.....it doesn't matter anymore. One thing is for sure if people keep letting them do what they have done and are doing. Then nothing will ever change. What, Vote in the next one to carry on continuing policy?


Any kind of violence would be put down hard imo. They would have no qualms about it. Unhappiness with the government is not at the level yet where many would take to the streets. Small pockets of resistance would just be crushed.

Anyhow, I don't think we're at that point yet. If people paid attention we could vote a lot of these losers out of office. I think the system would work if more people were paying attention. Like D has said though it is going to take something drastic (something terrible) for people to wake up from their tvs and realize their country has been sold out beneath them.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 08:55 AM
what I would like to know is why we the tax payers have to continually bail out the spenders in DC.. really, is it our fault that those fools can't control their impulses? it seems to me it is almost time for a tax revolt until these idiots get their house in order


Unfortunately I hate saying this.....but it is time for Violence. Violence against these politicians. They will want to debate and talk for another 150 yrs and not do a damn thing. The time for talking is thru. They have stolen from this Country. Stolen from every man woman and child. Only to pump themselves up as an Aristocracy. They have lied and decieved an entire nation of people, and they all did it knowing they were doing it. Politicians for 20yrs or longer, lifetime Appointments for Judges, no solutions. Gridlock turning into Deadlock. Its not just the Pols either Add in that World of Media. Never getting answers. Always controlling.....the talk. Now letting the Media drive whatever issue.

Needs to go back to like in the beginning. Pols got attacked. Food thrown at them. Not allowed to walk around in public freely with ridicule and or scorn. Threats and violence were used. Newspapers and Written content was put out slandering candidates. Including their families. Nothing is being made difficut for any of them. All know they have sold out. Left right center.....it doesn't matter anymore. One thing is for sure if people keep letting them do what they have done and are doing. Then nothing will ever change. What, Vote in the next one to carry on continuing policy?


Any kind of violence would be put down hard imo. They would have no qualms about it. Unhappiness with the government is not at the level yet where many would take to the streets. Small pockets of resistance would just be crushed.

Anyhow, I don't think we're at that point yet. If people paid attention we could vote a lot of these losers out of office. I think the system would work if more people were paying attention. Like D has said though it is going to take something drastic (something terrible) for people to wake up from their tvs and realize their country has been sold out beneath them.


I'm not so sure this government could resist a real challenge to its authority.

Conley
09-21-2011, 09:08 AM
What would a real challenge be?

MMC
09-21-2011, 09:47 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.

Conley
09-21-2011, 09:49 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.

MMC
09-21-2011, 09:52 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


What do they do when they come across a group of Veterans that were all Special Forces.....they have two options surrender/negotiate or die!

Conley
09-21-2011, 09:53 AM
Youse guys may have the skills but the numbers are definitely on their side. :-\

They've got lots and lots of numbers...would need to get deserters and groups to switch sides by winning the campaign for the hearts and minds. Easier said than done but perhaps possible.

MMC
09-21-2011, 10:04 AM
Youse guys may have the skills but the numbers are definitely on their side. :-\

They've got lots and lots of numbers...would need to get deserters and groups to switch sides by winning the campaign for the hearts and minds. Easier said than done but perhaps possible.


That is exactly what would happen.....Moreso from the military ranks than DHS, NSA or and L.E's.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 10:08 AM
What would a real challenge be?


We may have discussed this before but, fopr exmaple, if there was determined and popular attempt at secession I'm not so sure it could be stopped.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 10:10 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?

Conley
09-21-2011, 10:10 AM
What would a real challenge be?


We may have discussed this before but, fopr exmaple, if there was determined and popular attempt at secession I'm not so sure it could be stopped.


Ah, ok. I didn't know if you meant through voting or other means.

I do believe any attempt at secession would be bloody. Opinions are too divided to allow a clean break IMO.

Conley
09-21-2011, 10:11 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?


If they were being shot at? Absolutely.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 10:24 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?


If they were being shot at? Absolutely.


But who says they would bother to fight at all? Does this government command much in the way of loyalty or respect? I just don't see it especially in that kind of situation (i.e. popular unrest). I'm not talking about a riot or something like that. For me, I know there would come a point where I would be sympathetic to breakaway movements.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 10:25 AM
Mind you, I hold out hope for reform.

Conley
09-21-2011, 10:34 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?


If they were being shot at? Absolutely.


But who says they would bother to fight at all? Does this government command much in the way of loyalty or respect? I just don't see it especially in that kind of situation (i.e. popular unrest). I'm not talking about a riot or something like that. For me, I know there would come a point where I would be sympathetic to breakaway movements.


Well, I guess it depends on whether we're talking about some distant point in the future or right now. I got the sense from MMC's post that the time is now.

At the highest levels the military and government are so intertwined that the orders would definitely come down...then it would just a be a matter of chain of command and the guys at the bottom are trained not to question, just react. It's all pretty hypothetical but I just don't see how a peaceful turnover of power would happen. Too much at stake.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 10:46 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?


If they were being shot at? Absolutely.


But who says they would bother to fight at all? Does this government command much in the way of loyalty or respect? I just don't see it especially in that kind of situation (i.e. popular unrest). I'm not talking about a riot or something like that. For me, I know there would come a point where I would be sympathetic to breakaway movements.


Well, I guess it depends on whether we're talking about some distant point in the future or right now. I got the sense from MMC's post that the time is now.

At the highest levels the military and government are so intertwined that the orders would definitely come down...then it would just a be a matter of chain of command and the guys at the bottom are trained not to question, just react. It's all pretty hypothetical but I just don't see how a peaceful turnover of power would happen. Too much at stake.


I don't mean to suggest that it would be peaceful. Hardly. I just don't see the military reacting as an ideological bloc. It's a civilian military and it's currently filled with people who just may sympathize with separatists particularly if they are of a certain stripe. Moreover, I think the US military is just as polyglot and diseased as the rest of society. I just don't think it has the solidarity and professional ethos you suggest it does.

Now I agree that if something like that happened right now then, yes, it would probably be crushed due to lack of popular support but I do think it would shake this nation and its leadership to the core.

Conley
09-21-2011, 11:08 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?


If they were being shot at? Absolutely.


But who says they would bother to fight at all? Does this government command much in the way of loyalty or respect? I just don't see it especially in that kind of situation (i.e. popular unrest). I'm not talking about a riot or something like that. For me, I know there would come a point where I would be sympathetic to breakaway movements.


Well, I guess it depends on whether we're talking about some distant point in the future or right now. I got the sense from MMC's post that the time is now.

At the highest levels the military and government are so intertwined that the orders would definitely come down...then it would just a be a matter of chain of command and the guys at the bottom are trained not to question, just react. It's all pretty hypothetical but I just don't see how a peaceful turnover of power would happen. Too much at stake.


I don't mean to suggest that it would be peaceful. Hardly. I just don't see the military reacting as an ideological bloc. It's a civilian military and it's currently filled with people who just may sympathize with separatists particularly if they are of a certain stripe. Moreover, I think the US military is just as polyglot and diseased as the rest of society. I just don't think it has the solidarity and professional ethos you suggest it does.

Now I agree that if something like that happened right now then, yes, it would probably be crushed due to lack of popular support but I do think it would shake this nation and its leadership to the core.


Oh, I didn't mean to suggest there would be no deserters or switching of sides. It would be a dysfunctional mess. Still I think the military would be able to hold it together enough to win, based on combat training, numbers, etc. I don't think the defections or isolated segments would be enough to change the outcome, but in a few years who knows.

Mister D
09-21-2011, 11:13 AM
What would a real challenge be?


Hunting down every last damn one of them.


:D Yes, that would definitely qualify as a challenge.

I think that our military absolutely would engage and kill civilians. Even more so if the protester were armed, like say a Tea Party gathering. They would follow order and do as told. They have been battle hardened by the last fifteen years of constant war.


Would they?


If they were being shot at? Absolutely.


But who says they would bother to fight at all? Does this government command much in the way of loyalty or respect? I just don't see it especially in that kind of situation (i.e. popular unrest). I'm not talking about a riot or something like that. For me, I know there would come a point where I would be sympathetic to breakaway movements.


Well, I guess it depends on whether we're talking about some distant point in the future or right now. I got the sense from MMC's post that the time is now.

At the highest levels the military and government are so intertwined that the orders would definitely come down...then it would just a be a matter of chain of command and the guys at the bottom are trained not to question, just react. It's all pretty hypothetical but I just don't see how a peaceful turnover of power would happen. Too much at stake.


I don't mean to suggest that it would be peaceful. Hardly. I just don't see the military reacting as an ideological bloc. It's a civilian military and it's currently filled with people who just may sympathize with separatists particularly if they are of a certain stripe. Moreover, I think the US military is just as polyglot and diseased as the rest of society. I just don't think it has the solidarity and professional ethos you suggest it does.

Now I agree that if something like that happened right now then, yes, it would probably be crushed due to lack of popular support but I do think it would shake this nation and its leadership to the core.


Oh, I didn't mean to suggest there would be no deserters or switching of sides. It would be a dysfunctional mess. Still I think the military would be able to hold it together enough to win, based on combat training, numbers, etc. I don't think the defections or isolated segments would be enough to change the outcome, but in a few years who knows.


I think defections etc. woul;d be few and far in between if this happened today. A popular insurgency or secessionist movement is assumed in my comments. Your average American would rather keep stuffing his face full of potato chips and let Jon Stewart make him feel like he is in the know. ::) At least for now...

Again, this isn't something I champion.

Elibe
09-21-2011, 12:20 PM
i am pleased to hear it .. seems some are looking forward to it

Mister D
09-21-2011, 12:34 PM
i am pleased to hear it .. seems some are looking forward to it


I'm sure some are but if and when it does happen will they be to blame?

Conley
09-22-2011, 09:01 AM
It might just be a matter of those individuals being prepared for any eventuality.

I think most who are paying attention agree that major reform is necessary. Ideally it will be a peaceful transition, but history has shown us it is not always so. Honestly, are there any politicians on the horizon that appear to be willing to fight for the American people and the country we love? They appear to be very few and far between.