GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

[lektrode]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Despite his protestation, Woody seems to be locked into the "Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good" dichotomy of evil, racist Pubs v. progressive, egalitarian Dems.

and then we have the RINO's and DINO's to contend with....
the ones that vote the most expediently, for re-election - and to hell with whats best for the majority of The Rest of US.
the term 'tyranny of the minorities' is what comes to mind. (and we're ALL minorities now, just soz nobody me gets wrong here, woody ;)
and one of the groups in particular - since it cant come up with a 'natural majority' with its pandering to ever smaller slivers of the electorate to do so - i like to put it something like "if you put em all together under the big (blue) tent and gave em all free booze, they'd all be fighting amongst themselves in about 2hours" - due to the wild 'diversity' of their special interests...

We pretty much have a one party system of big government and crony capitalism, with the mainstream Pubs being the Stupid Wing of the party and post-modern/"progressive" Dems making up the Evil Wing. The Tea Party, for all their faults, and the Occupy Movement, for all their faults (Astroturf, bankrolled by the evil Koch Bros or evil Soros, blah, blah, blah) represent a challenge to rulers, especially the Tea Party, since they actually work, pay taxes, and bathe regularly.

heheheh... i'm glad we can keep some humor in this discussion - i'll admit to a bit of ROTFLMAO on that one....

One of the big lies that is used to maintain the status quo, is the notion of class warfare as rich v. poor. Charles Hugh Smith wrote a great article a couple years ago at his site Of Two Minds, describing the Three Way Class Warfare that actually exists. You can read it here.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogsept10...fare09-10.html

yup +1
chuck has a balanced POV

[lektrode]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

and vt does it great job of summation here - for us independent, but somewhat right-leaning types,
that also happen to be self-employed, small biz operators:

Woody,

I've stated numerous times I don't like either, as has Raz.

I understand your distaste for the GOP. I'm simply pointing out the Dems are just as bad.

Throw them all out and create something that works in a changing world.

I just feel that all this money they are printing and spending like drunken sailors is not helping the middle class or poor.
We have to make sure people are fed, but we also have to take money away from the banksters, crony capitalists and crony socialists. Reduce the overpaid bureaucracy through attrition, reduce their early gold plated retirements, and make sure what they do increases educational standards
and helps produce jobs.

Have reasonable but not suffocating regulation.

Put financial criminals in jail and
confiscate (DC would like this) their ill gotten loot.

Let's start working on the platform for the new majority party

and a double ayuh to that!

when most criminals go down for their crimes, most of em pay the ultimate price.

so WHY IS IT WHEN THE 'white collar' types, THE BANKSTERS IN PARTICULAR - get busted, all we typically see is BS like:
'no admit wrong' a slap on wrist, a pittance of a fine, that doesnt even take much of a bite out of their profit on the scam
NEVER MIND TAKE EVERY LAST GD DIME, never mind all the 'profits'
and busting them back down to living in a cardboard box on the street, with the 'occupy' bunch

THAT would be JUSTICE, vs what we've been seeing

[dcarrigg]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

In order for your strawman to exist there must be an argument or debate. I am not arguing. I am not debating.

If you told me that all apples were oranges, I would try to explain why this is not so. You might show me a definition that says they're both round fruit that grow on trees. I might tell you that orange and apple are biological terms. I might explain that they have different dna and chromosomal structures. I might say they are of different species and they thrive in different climates. I might add that a crazed futurist might say that you can make apples and oranges the same with genetic manipulation. But that is crazy. In our current biological framework oranges and apples are incompatible. And I might suspect that the fact that you asserted that apples and oranges were the same in the first place means that some of the crazy futurist's ideas had leaked into common consciousness.

But notice I am just stating fact. You could insist that this is an argument. You could claim I'm making strawmen because nobody in this thread is a futurist. You could claim I'm making more straw men because you never mentioned biology or climate or genetics.

But from my point of view, this is not a debate. Apples are not oranges. The concepts are different and clearly defined. I'm not interested in debating whether apples are oranges - only explaining why apples and oranges are not the same thing.

You could continue to insist apples are oranges. That's your prerogative. You can claim I am committing logical fallacies for explaining why apples aren't oranges (or kiwis or peaches or pears for that matter). That's your prerogative too.

But it doesn't make it so.

[LazyBoy]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

I love your depth and breadth of knowledge, dc.
I'd also love to see your reading list, say, your top 10 or 20 books on .... anything we discuss on iTulip.

[vt]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Comments on concentrated wealth:

If the left says that baby boomers have too much wealth is that because they have gained it through being favored?

You first must asked how they got it? Did they inherit from parents who had a saving ethic and paid down debt? Did they themselves have the same view on spending? Should we then tax them extra on this?

With the demise of pensions, people who sacrifice to max out 401K and other retirement plans may accumulate $1 to $2 million. But the income from this, especially with the low rates of today, may not yield much. They face an uncertain longevity and possibility of their net worth being decimated by nursing home costs. Meanwhile those that do have pensions like government workers have income streams indexed to inflation which the taxpayer is partially on the hook for. How do we reconcile the accumulation of actual wealth compared to "pension" wealth?

What about those that don't save but spend now for higher living standards? Do we penalize savers to subsidize the spenders retirements and nursing home costs?

None of this applies to the disabled or those that have not been able to find work, even though they try their hardest. These individuals deserve our help. I only speak of those that could have saved, but spent instead.

Don't forget most of the middle class wealth in this country is in homes and retirement plans. If they have full paid off their house instead of using it as an ATM, should they be penalized? If you save for years and pay down debt in the same manner an older person will accumulate much more than a person 20 years or 40 years younger. But the older person then has to spend down when they can no longer work. The younger can continue to progress in careers and save and pay down debt while doing so, thus repeating the pattern of their older "wealthy" citizens.

The reason that the estate tax exemption is $5 million is that the income from that principal will be needed to pay for long retirements, long term care if needed, and to pass on to children for helping them get started.

Now one can say we should not go after reasonable amounts of middle class frugality. We only go after the big pools of money. Fine. But how much is really there?

If you take the entire fortune of the Forbes 400 and confiscate it you pay the federal budget for this year. what do you do in 2014? Go after the next 4,000? In 2015? The next 40,000?

In a few years the golden goose is gone. How do we create more wealth by increasing the size of the pie instead of cutting a static or declining pie into warring pieces?

It's interesting that Buffett and Gates are leading a billionaires movement to give almost all their wealth to charities. It's ironic that they feel it is better used by charities than governments that can't spend what they have in the interests of those that need it.

[DSpencer]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Here is an analogy that actually makes sense:

I claim that apples are fruits. You then reply with 10 paragraphs that say "If you're going to insist that apples are oranges, then we cannot even begin to discuss this. Furthermore, here are all the reasons that apples are not oranges."

That is what makes it a straw man. You seem to think that your arguments having merit or facts being true changes the fact that you are refuting a position that I am not taking. Saying that it's not a straw man, because you're not making an argument, you're just stating facts is just plain silly.

[dcarrigg]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Here is an analogy that actually makes sense:

I claim that apples are fruits. You then reply with 10 paragraphs that say "If you're going to insist that apples are oranges, then we cannot even begin to discuss this. Furthermore, here are all the reasons that apples are not oranges."

That is what makes it a straw man. You seem to think that your arguments having merit or facts being true changes the fact that you are refuting a position that I am not taking. Saying that it's not a straw man, because you're not making an argument, you're just stating facts is just plain silly.

Again, you think this is a debate or an argument. It is not. I am not refuting anything. I am not rebutting anything. I am not arguing with you. I am simply explaining why two things are different in a public forum. I am not under the impression that I will change your mind, nor am I under the impression that it is appropriate to debate, refute, or rebut this sort of argument. I am simply delineating the difference between two concepts and explaining why it's hard for us to communicate about which fruit we want out of the basket when we can't even provide clear names for different fruits.

[DSpencer]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Woody,

I've stated numerous times I don't like either, as has Raz.

I understand your distaste for the GOP. I'm simply pointing out the Dems are just as bad.

Let's start working on the platform for the new majority party

I'm in the same boat of disliking both. Do you actually vote this way or just hold your nose and vote for the "lesser" of two evils?

Here's my suggestion for plank #1:

1. The tax code must be simple enough so that a person of average intelligence can know and understand it.

[Master Shake]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

It's interesting that Buffett and Gates are leading a billionaires movement to give almost all their wealth to charities. It's ironic that they feel it is better used by charities than governments that can't spend what they have in the interests of those that need it.

They can also ensure that their offspring, friends, and associates head those charities and draw handsome salaries.

[lektrode]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

whoa baybee...

and my other 1/2 wonders why i cant/wont tear myself away...

[DSpencer]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Again, you think this is a debate or an argument. It is not. I am not refuting anything. I am not rebutting anything. I am not arguing with you. I am simply explaining why two things are different in a public forum.

Then I'll stop not-arguing about it.

I am not under the impression that I will change your mind, nor am I under the impression that it is appropriate to debate, refute, or rebut this sort of argument.

I thought it wasn't an argument? Ok sorry, no more.

EDIT: As a final note, I only engage in these discussions because I think there is something to be gained, at least for me. Even on this issue (estate tax) you have provided viewpoints that have shaped my view somewhat even if not radically altering it. For example some of the historical arguments that large inheritances are antithetical to a meritocracy are compelling to me.

[lektrode]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

I thought it wasn't an argument? Ok sorry, no more.

yeah spence, sometimes the better part of valor is knowing when to give up (and/or knowing what 'battles' to pick/engage)

and dc IS one of our best, without doubt.

[dcarrigg]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Then I'll stop not-arguing about it.

Ok.

I thought it wasn't an argument? Ok sorry, no more.

Maybe if I had put the word in quotes the sarcasm would show through. But this is also enough. I can be more civil than this. Sorry about that.

[lektrode]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

I'm in the same boat of disliking both. Do you actually vote this way or just hold your nose and vote for the "lesser" of two evils?

Here's my suggestion for plank #1:

1. The tax code must be simple enough so that a person of average intelligence can know and understand it.

+1
that should've been Article 1a of the Constitution.

along with a postcard sized 1040a for most

its absurdity that so many w2 filers have to (or choose to anyway) actually pay somebody to do it for them.

[lektrode]

Re: GOP: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

.... I only engage in these discussions because I think there is something to be gained, at least for me. Even on this issue (estate tax) you haveprovided viewpoints that have shaped my view somewhat even if not radically altering it. For example some of the historical arguments that large inheritances are antithetical to a meritocracy are compelling to me.

+1
precisely why most of us - i'm guessing - most who post anyway - do also.
as i've mentioned, its why i enjoy reading/engaging those who challenge my POV
else the echo chamber gets boring

and there sure.... as death/taxes... is nuthin boring about these discussions

why i say one can learn more in a couple of these threads than in hours/days/weeks of other media sources.