If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mitch McConnell bravely ran away. When reporters reared their ugly heads, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Bravest of the brave, Mitch McConnell   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 385
    More: Amusing, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, John Barrasso, Jon Kyl, romney  
•       •       •

18658 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2012 at 6:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



385 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-19 09:53:44 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.


I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.




Really? I would happily contribute far more towards the schools as having to deal with even a few less stupid people in a day would be luxurious to me.
 
2012-09-19 09:53:56 PM

TOSViolation: Defense? Defend what? What Romney said was asinine. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying that SAYING it out loud was stupid.


Well, it ISN'T true.

Of course, if you accept one reality, your entire fantasy world might collapse. So, I understand your hesitation.
 
2012-09-19 09:54:07 PM

Indubitably: bunner: Indubitably: bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.

bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?

I know I do, you. Thing is, what I'm talking about is a very simple process in where you step back until the broader scope emerges and act accordingly. Minutiae keeps debt farmers shi*ting in high cotton. Obvious truths do not.

See?


I love thee, however your wordage is obtuse. Poetic even. I still think youm should buy one of my paintings. Maybe?
 
2012-09-19 09:54:39 PM
I am going to put forth what everybody should write in on their ballot in Nov. You wont, but here it is. "DEAR POLITICIANS. PLEASE STOP SHI*TING WHERE WE EAT. - THE ELECTORATE". Ta da.
 
2012-09-19 09:55:22 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: Grungehamster: coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.

So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.



Sounds like you've studied this quite a bit. What would you like to see be put in place, if anything?


I just have to ask. Are you on a phone that screws with your replies, or are you purposefully indenting?



emacs macro
 
2012-09-19 09:55:36 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: bunner: Indubitably: bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.

bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?

I know I do, you. Thing is, what I'm talking about is a very simple process in where you step back until the broader scope emerges and act accordingly. Minutiae keeps debt farmers shi*ting in high cotton. Obvious truths do not.

See?

I love thee, however your wordage is obtuse. Poetic even. I still think youm should buy one of my paintings. Maybe?


I realize art after death is more profitable, but art made is more; *hint-hint*
 
2012-09-19 09:56:46 PM

Indubitably: I realize art after death is more profitable, but art made is more; *hint-hint*


I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still. You got a website?
 
2012-09-19 09:57:40 PM

bunner: Indubitably: I realize art after death is more profitable, but art made is more; *hint-hint*

I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still. You got a website?


Nope.

I got Fark...
 
2012-09-19 09:58:31 PM
Can you e-mail me some snaps?
 
2012-09-19 09:58:40 PM

bunner: I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still.


When I first read your comment, it was dirty in my head.
 
2012-09-19 09:59:59 PM
By the way, some weenieburger is going to go pissing and moaning to the admins any minute now because "Z0mG, he is hij4xor1ng teh threadzor!" so, I'll check in later about this.
 
2012-09-19 10:01:55 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: Defense? Defend what? What Romney said was asinine. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying that SAYING it out loud was stupid.

Well, it ISN'T true.

Of course, if you accept one reality, your entire fantasy world might collapse. So, I understand your hesitation.



We are living in a fantasy world. The fact that I can drink a cup of coffee for only $2 at Starbucks proves it.

If everyone involved in getting that cup of coffee to me, who does their job to the best of their ability, was allowed to live the same lifestyle that I do, then that cup of coffee would probably cost $50 or more.

We are living on the backs of slave labor. Slavery was not abolished. It was just shifted. Everything we think we have is an illusion.

Do I believe in Socialism? The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature. It's our animal instinct to ensure that our own offspring have it better than everyone else. That's just how our survival instinct is supposed to work.

I think it would be a perfect world where every necessary job function rewarded the employee equally. Maybe it takes more effort and intelligence to become a surgeon, but I really don't want to work with sewage. If you promised the top surgeon his exact same salary to take a nurse's job of cleaning bedpans, I highly doubt he'd go for it. He'd probably take a 1% pay cut to avoid that.

The thing is that I just don't care anymore because we're all going to die soon enough. In the grand scheme of things, as the Earth gets swallowed by the Sun, none of this will have ever mattered at all.
 
2012-09-19 10:06:39 PM

Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.

And do you think that it is particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax the production or consumption of goods?

Look, the "double taxation" canard is ridiculous because we tax virtually each and every transaction other than charity and a handful of government sponsored programs to either compensate people or provide social protection. The fact that you have to pay money on profits you make regardless of if the profits were from your labor, your money, your intellectual property, or simply a windfall. It sucks, but we do give an incentive to invest for those who choose to in the form of lower tax rates. Would you say "I got my paycheck and went and bought a lottery ticket, why am I double taxed on my winnings?"

Where is that Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon when you need it?


I guess we finally distilled our exact differences. It seems the major dispute is over capital gains. I strongly believe that the more capital is free flowing through the system the easier to start businesses and to expand businesses. Major capital purchases such as building new buildings, hiring new personnel, building a new factory are all things that require an awful lot of capital. The 17% rate now does not disincentivize capital investments, but bringing the rates up to income tax levels may.

The attack on Romney's 17% rate of taxation seems to be an attack on capital gains. I imagine the recipients of his capital were quite happy for the availability of that money.

I don't have much more to say on this matter. I think that you're very well informed and educated I think we just simply have a difference on this one aspect.

/I'm out but will read for 10 more minutes without replying
 
2012-09-19 10:06:45 PM

bunner: By the way, some weenieburger is going to go pissing and moaning to the admins any minute now because "Z0mG, he is hij4xor1ng teh threadzor!" so, I'll check in later about this.


Better not.
 
2012-09-19 10:06:52 PM

eraser8: bunner: I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still.

When I first read your comment, it was dirty in my head.


If he did atm maybe he wouldn't be poor.
 
2012-09-19 10:07:02 PM

eraser8: You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.


The Sheriff is near again. Expect epic amounts of butthurt over the next several weeks.
 
2012-09-19 10:08:35 PM

fusillade762: eraser8: bunner: I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still.

When I first read your comment, it was dirty in my head.

If he did atm maybe he wouldn't be poor.


It isn't all about money.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eraser8: You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.

The Sheriff is near again. Expect epic amounts of butthurt over the next several weeks.


It still isn't.

P.S. At your peril.
 
2012-09-19 10:10:00 PM

FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.


Yes, I do not wish to get cocky either but I told my brother the other day that some of the best news I have heard is he and another person who always vote (R) are not voting this year for President because there is no one they want to vote for. There isn't even a lesser of 2 evils, just no vote. That's two less votes that would have gone to an intelligent (R) if the GOP wouldn't have been so stupid as to kick Huntsman and Johnson to the curb. Good.

/4 more years
 
2012-09-19 10:11:34 PM

my lip balm addiction: FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.

Yes, I do not wish to get cocky either but I told my brother the other day that some of the best news I have heard is he and another person who always vote (R) are not voting this year for President because there is no one they want to vote for. There isn't even a lesser of 2 evils, just no vote. That's two less votes that would have gone to an intelligent (R) if the GOP wouldn't have been so stupid as to kick Huntsman and Johnson to the curb. Good.

/4 more years



LOL! We won't make it past December 21st.
 
2012-09-19 10:14:12 PM

TOSViolation: my lip balm addiction: FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.

Yes, I do not wish to get cocky either but I told my brother the other day that some of the best news I have heard is he and another person who always vote (R) are not voting this year for President because there is no one they want to vote for. There isn't even a lesser of 2 evils, just no vote. That's two less votes that would have gone to an intelligent (R) if the GOP wouldn't have been so stupid as to kick Huntsman and Johnson to the curb. Good.

/4 more years


LOL! We won't make it past December 21st.


Um,
 
2012-09-19 10:19:58 PM

TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?


Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?


*facepalm*. The stupid. It burns.

Honestly, anyone who's been around here for even a little while knows what the GED in ... thing means.

What cracks me up is that nobody is buying your pathetic attempt to deflect the discussion away from what Romney said.
 
2012-09-19 10:22:01 PM

TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.


It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest stepping-stone to it."
 
2012-09-19 10:22:17 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.


I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.


Yeah, you're an idiot. But you're certainly entertaining arguing with everybody. Carry on.
 
2012-09-19 10:23:33 PM

coyo: Grungehamster: coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.

So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.



Sounds like you've studied this quite a bit. What would you like to see be put in place, if anything?


I'm mostly satisfied with the way things are set up now as far as what should and shouldn't be taxed. We need more revenue, but I'll fully admit estimating the optimal rates to obtain this is way out of my league. What I really want to see is the tax code simplified The Bowles-Simpson Plan actually had language to both cut marginal tax rates and remove the deductions in such a way that it would actually be revenue positive. It would likely hurt, but at least it would lead to more honest discussions of tax policy because marginal rates are horrible when trying to discuss the fairness of the system when effective rates are often radically different.

I'd like to think Romney's promise to do something similar had some weight but his explicitly outlining of rates that are much less progressive than Bush's tax cuts (Bush cut the bottom tax bracket by 5% and the top bracket by 4.6%; Romney promises to cut the bottom tax bracket by 2% and the top bracket by 7%) and his outright refusal to list what deductions he would eliminate to make it revenue neutral leads me to assume that the tax cuts will come with no changes to deductions in the best case ("they were lost in negotiations with Congress") and go after the big ticket deductions that everyone gets some benefit from [but still have to be trimmed at some point] but will leave the high income preferential deductions untouched simply because those are the ones that have strong lobbyist support and very little motivation to overturn.

The thing is that tax incentives are a REALLY effective way of conducting social policy in this country, partially because Republicans like the idea of letting people keep their money and Democrats like the idea of government encouraging certain economic behaviors through policy so they are easy to pass. The problem is that after a certain point you have, well, the US Tax Code: a massive document that is impossible to navigate and bears little relation to any simple guidelines you can outline, since there always seems to be another wrinkle.
 
2012-09-19 10:24:22 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: TOSViolation: coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.


I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.

Yeah, you're an idiot. But you're certainly entertaining arguing with everybody. Carry on.



Put down your iPhone, and do your homework, kid.
 
2012-09-19 10:24:27 PM

Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?


Because said group isn't an actual opposition party. They simply represent a particular extreme of American politics. An opposition party, for example, would want some of the same things the administration in power wants, but achieved by different means.
 
2012-09-19 10:27:09 PM

SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?


Are you high?
 
2012-09-19 10:28:14 PM

Any Pie Left: Senator turtle-man is in my opinion a traitor to the nation for his deliberate (and proudly publicly pre-announced) attempts to monkey-wrnech the US government since inauguration day, just to make things bad enough to make Obama a one-termer. He should DIAF and his cronies with him. There's loyal opposition, then there's farking with the US economy on a macro scale just to sway an election your way. Fark him with a rake SIDEWAYS. He's more un-American than most terrorists.


THIS (plus a little of my own)
 
2012-09-19 10:28:31 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.

It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a ne ...



It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.
 
2012-09-19 10:29:50 PM

TOSViolation: eraser8: TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.

It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to ...


You rely too much on labelry, *tsk tsk*

Mind matters.
 
2012-09-19 10:32:17 PM

TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.


Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.
 
2012-09-19 10:32:31 PM

cptjeff: WTP 2: i thought i was the only one getting the monty reference
i see i was wrong
good on with the show

Nope, and now I have a medley of Spamalot stuck in my head, mostly the Finale.


Me? I have to push the pram a lot. =(
 
2012-09-19 10:32:47 PM

TOSViolation: Nope. No law degree of any sort.


No shiat.
 
2012-09-19 10:39:27 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.


Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.
 
2012-09-19 10:40:22 PM
This reminds me of that TPM article that was critical of the White House for its lack of transparency and unwillingness of the President to answer questions to the Press Corps (the "so called" Libural Media reporters even whisper complaints about it).

Wait. No I don't. Because TPM is a biased mouth piece for one certain party, they would never write a negative article about their candidate.
 
2012-09-19 10:41:12 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.



Unchecked? Unchecked by another greedy person? That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff. That's the point.

The reason feudalism works is because of the weak and unambitious. That's sort of the same reason Capitalism works.

It's all just smoke and mirrors anyway. People are just like liquids of different densities poured into the same jar. Shake it up as many different ways as you want, and they're all going to settle the same way.

Economic systems only work if the political systems can enforce them adequately.
 
2012-09-19 10:41:49 PM

bunner: eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.

Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.


I'm thinking, maybe, you meant to direct this to TOSViolation?
 
2012-09-19 10:42:32 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.


You don't need greed, having basic needs and an efficient way to encourage exchange of surplus commodities and/or labor for otherwise unobtainable goods and services is enough. One can engage in such trades without also being greedy. Is it at all sensible to say anytime you engage in exchanging excess goods (capital) for goods you lack is motivated primarily by greed? Isn't that extreme? Isn't having a legitimate and non-vicious desire for some good sufficient? Why must such transactions be regulated by the government, rather than the parties involved in the exchange themselves, in accord with basic moral virtues, moral rules, etc?

Obviously, many, many people are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards. But that's not a failure of an economic system, it's a failure of humanity.

Many, many, people, regardless of the economic and/or political system, are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards.It's not like getting rid of capitalism is going to magically change that. People will still want stuff, and too much of it, and will bend or break all law and morality to get it.



So how does Capitalism fail to work at all
 
2012-09-19 10:42:36 PM

eraser8: bunner: eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.

Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.

I'm thinking, maybe, you meant to direct this to TOSViolation?


Actually, I did mean to. Sorry.
 
2012-09-19 10:47:18 PM
Any system of governance or financial facilitation is, or was, designed to serve the population it governs. When the people are told they must serve IT, the pooch has been screwed and it's time to shake the etch a sketch. I can send anybody who doesn't know what time it is an old Timex, if it'll help. Wealth doesn't trickle down, money is bad IOUs, any any "pure" form of any given ideology is toxic as sh*t. Beauce all socioeconomic systems are COMPONENTS of what mostly works, most of the time, and nothing more. The sad part is, we already know this and keep fighting to see who gets to hold the flag the highest for whatever particular flavor of toxic we bought. into. Ah, ha ha. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
 
2012-09-19 10:47:18 PM

bunner: eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.

Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.



Dude...Capitalism has nothing to do with bank notes. Bartering is still Capitalism. It doesn't matter what item(s) of capital value you use.

Capitalism doesn't even have anything to do with democracy. You can have a Capitalist dictatorship or a democratic Socialist society.
 
2012-09-19 10:48:22 PM
AND any pure for. Can't type for toffee.
 
2012-09-19 10:50:54 PM

TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.


How have you not figured out that monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade PREVENT competition? That's why it's illegal in this country for any firm or group of firms to deliberately set out to create monopoly conditions...or, to use any monopoly power it/they may wield in order to maintain that monopoly.

Of course, it should be noted that monopolies are not per se illegal.

In any case, capitalism requires free competition. And, free competition requires regulation. Without regulation, the natural tendency for firms to collude in "a conspiracy against the public" is overwhelming. And, the system breaks down.
 
2012-09-19 10:53:54 PM

Bhasayate: Obviously, many, many people are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards. But that's not a failure of an economic system, it's a failure of humanity.


Not really sure what this has to do with my post.

Bhasayate: Many, many, people, regardless of the economic and/or political system, are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards.It's not like getting rid of capitalism is going to magically change that.


Who is advocating getting rid of capitalism?

Bhasayate: So how does Capitalism fail to work at all


Wait, what?
 
2012-09-19 10:55:20 PM
This whole campaign seems as though it was built on a swamp...
 
2012-09-19 10:57:41 PM
TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.

Or, if you can successfully foist off whatever trash you can buy for 25¢ to people for 1.00 on a regular basis and stonewall them with endlessly circuitous automated phone systems, you get to have nice stuff, too. People who think they win when they get to sh*t where everybody, eventually has to eat, amuse me to no end. People so unaware of their own mortality that they think somebody wins to begin with? More so.
 
2012-09-19 10:59:06 PM
Sounds like the GOP may finally be learning the old rule.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all Doubt."
 
2012-09-19 11:01:05 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.

How have you not figured out that monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade PREVENT competition? That's why it's illegal in this country for any firm or group of firms to deliberately set out to create monopoly conditions...or, to use any monopoly power it/they may wield in order to maintain that monopoly.

Of course, it should be noted that monopolies are not per se illegal.

In any case, capitalism requires free competition. And, free competition requires regulation. Without regulation, the natural tendency for firms to collude in "a conspiracy against the public" is overwhelming. And, the system breaks down.



Monopolies are not a problem as long as someone else is willing to come along to challenge them. Without government regulations to back them up, monopolies fail in the face of innovation.

Look at the RIAA. They are no longer relevant without government protection. Recording studios had near-monopolies on music production. They are now largely irrelevant.

The only thing we need the government to do is protect competitors from killing each other outright. Have a good idea? Protect it. Steal a good idea? You must have been smarter.

I'm not saying it's morally right. I'm just saying it's human nature. It's just like the last roll at the dinner table. The weak man gives it up to his brother, who then grows stronger and kills him.
 
2012-09-19 11:02:05 PM

bunner: TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.

Or, if you can successfully foist off whatever trash you can buy for 25¢ to people for 1.00 on a regular basis and stonewall them with endlessly circuitous automated phone systems, you get to have nice stuff, too. People who think they win when they get to sh*t where everybody, eventually has to eat, amuse me to no end. People so unaware of their own mortality that they think somebody wins to begin with? More so.



You only have to keep winning until you die. After that, you don't care anymore.
 
2012-09-19 11:03:18 PM
Crap! I gave the thread tree-fiddy. I'm out!
 
Displayed 50 of 385 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report