im scratching my head a bit

[wkmac]

Umm, the company as a whole makes a lot more than $250,000. Read my new thread above. It'll will get worse and they will pass their tax increases to all the customers and employees(or lack of employees)

That's a good point but I think even moreso in this light.

President wanna-be Obama loves to point out that McCain voted with Bush a high % of the time which I don't doubt is true but here's my problem with that. When it counted, when Bush policy was moving mass amounts of dollars to be created out of thin air which is inflationary in itself, whether through increasing debt limits to fund the Iraq war or his most recent act where he carried Bush water (actually just following Pelosi and Reid) in the massive Wall Street bailout. All these economic acts of intervention are inflationary on a fundamental level.

Corporations indeed do not pay taxes but embed those cost into their products or services that their own customers pay. As you pointed out so well this is inflationary. And who suffers the most in this scenario? The poor and those on fixed income, the very people Obama claims (along with many "democrats" here) wants to help. But here's where it gets even worse for the "little guy!"

Large corporations are better able to absorb these tax costs but the small "Mom and Pop" outfits can't afford on staff tax lawyers, Washington lobbyist and the like to get them special treatment. So what happens is a further destruction of what we still call the "free market" (it ain't) in that the "Mom and Pop" business goes away and further consolidation of the market goes into the larger corporations which create a monopolistic marketplace. Once the monopoly marketplace is consolidated, the monopoly and not the market dictate terms. Amazing so many of us were fooled into thinking the Trust Busting Acts of Gov't prevented monopolies. Did anyone bother to read who wrote those pieces of legislation back in the day? We got conned again folks!

So many "good democrats" scream of the horrible Walmarts putting small Mom and Pop businesses out of work but then by gov't decree, they will in effect do the very same thing. Maybe this explains why so much corp. money is backing the democrats this go-round!

You know, come to think of it, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Schumer were qucik draw McGraw when Wall Street Big Business came calling for a bailiout. You union members better think again about these folks! Not that you have much choice on the otherside of the isle but you guys should be voting Nader if you really want someone of principle in office to share your concerns.

But wait, if too many Mom and Pop's start going down gov't will act again to create some program that they give money or whatever to maybe throw a bone to small business in order to buy votes and look good. It won't solve the root problem but only mask it for a time but hey, it creates jobs (gov't jobs in the bureacracy) in order to skew the unemployment numbers. Or, in other words, create the problem and then grow gov't to so-call solve it! Hegel and his dialectic would be so proud of us!

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role

Hegel was also quoted in the 1959' "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich" on page 144 as following:

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'"

 

[wkmac]

Consider Hegel's quote again:

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'"

Now, in that context keeping the above thought in mind, read over this

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/#enable-americans

now it all sounds good and wonderful but in the end it's about the glorification of the State itself and the lessening importance of the freedom of the individual.

Also these so-called plans of national service may sound good but once a large % of the population is roped in, how long before it becomes mandatory? And we might also consider these terms when we consider the above plan.

Unpaid Servitude!

Involutary Servitude!

Hey, let's just call it what it is, State sanctioned Slavery!

Want your social security? Better volunteer to qualify.
Want admission to a public school? Better voluteer to qualify.
Want a high school diploma? Better voluteer to qualify.
Want admission in a state university? Better volunteer to qualify.

Could they even go so far as to make volunteering a must to get or keep a job?

 

[tieguy]

i will say however, in the first seven and a half years of rule, this Republican party failed to respond to domestic troubles with any effectiveness whatsoever. This Republican party was dragged kicking and screaming to respond to Katrina and Rita. This Republican party ignored a growing financial crisis and claimed the basic economic fundamentals, fundamentals they unwittingly undermined, were sound.

Not true. they tried to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac approximately three years ago and were thwarted by the democrats.The current economic crisis is yours.

 

[diesel96]

You sure about that? I'm thinking you're gonna have to pay the extra 3% on the entire 265k. $7,950 extra best case that spends possible insurance benefits for two people.

Tex, your taxed at the same rate as everybody else up to $1/4 million, everything above that, tack on an additional 3%-3.6%, that's approx $750 to a $900 to every $25,000 above $250,000. Thats recinded to no higher than the levels of the 1990's.

Typical "Yellow Dog" style, condemn your opponents for "partisan caricatures" and turn around and that very thing. Classy hypocritical move.

Go back and read the first two sentences "rude dog",
"The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation."
This is admitting everyone is involved, I'm simply exposing Republican participation as a response to some who feel the Democrats are the sole proprietors of the Wall Street Crash.

 

[diesel96]

i will say however, in the first seven and a half years of rule, this Republican party failed to respond to domestic troubles with any effectiveness whatsoever. This Republican party was dragged kicking and screaming to respond to Katrina and Rita. This Republican party ignored a growing financial crisis and claimed the basic economic fundamentals, fundamentals they unwittingly undermined, were sound.

Not true. they tried to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac approximately three years ago and were thwarted by the democrats.The current economic crisis is yours.

I see the Tieguy is trying to pin the economic troubles we have on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now, the argument is hogwash. Why? Because George Bush became President in 2001. Why? Because Republicans controlled the Congress from 1995 to 2007.
If Fannie and Freddie were the problem, why in the hell didn't the Republicans fix it from 1994 until now? Barack Obama showed up in Washington, DC in 2005. Fannie and Freddie have been around for 40 years. What the hell was the Republican Party doing during its 12 years of dominance of the Congress and 8 years of dominance of the White House? If Fannie and Freddie were the problem, why didn't the Republicans fix it? Maybe we can ask Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, who made millions as a Fannie and Freddie lobbiest. Doh !

 

[av8torntn]

I see the Tieguy is trying to pin the economic troubles we have on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now, the argument is hogwash. Why? Because George Bush became President in 2001. Why? Because Republicans controlled the Congress from 1995 to 2007.
If Fannie and Freddie were the problem, why in the hell didn't the Republicans fix it from 1994 until now? Barack Obama showed up in Washington, DC in 2005. Fannie and Freddie have been around for 40 years. What the hell was the Republican Party doing during its 12 years of dominance of the Congress and 8 years of dominance of the White House? If Fannie and Freddie were the problem, why didn't the Republicans fix it? Maybe we can ask Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, who made millions as a Fannie and Freddie lobbiest. Doh !

Can they use the same excuse your Dim's use now? No 60 vote majority in the Senate to cut off debate. The committees were also split evenly most of the time so that made it even more difficult to get something to the floor for debate.

 

[stringerman85]

I think DannyBoy would be a great candidate for president...He loves to avoid questions

 

[dannyboy]

nope

i dint think there is a question as to who is at fault. they all are

if bush really wanted to do something about the current crisis 3 years ago, he could have pulled a ronnie reagan and taken the subject to the people.

only problem is that any one standing against what was going on would have been branded and looked like a racist.

so none of them actually had the guts to stand against something they were against.

i have no use for either party, and for sure dont want to vote for anyone that has been in congress or senate and been a part of this issue.

that is why i am hoping palin in the second year.

as for questions, what was yours again? all i saw was this partisan issue, and i stated right on it is the fault of both parties.


d

 

[trplnkl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel96
But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

i will say however, in the first seven and a half years of rule, this Republican party failed to respond to domestic troubles with any effectiveness whatsoever.

Typical "Yellow Dog" style, condemn your opponents for "partisan caricatures" and turn around and that very thing. Classy hypocritical move.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was merely pointing out that you were using partisan caricatures same as everyone else. Get over it.

It the "yellow dog" comment is what has your panties in a wad, I would like to point out that Yellow Dog Democrat is an long used nickname by both sides of the isle. Most Demo's I know kinda take a little pride in the name, Sorry you didn't.
Your's truly and forever,
Rude Dawg.

 

[tieguy]

I see the Tieguy is trying to pin the economic troubles we have on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now, the argument is hogwash. Why? Because George Bush became President in 2001. Why? Because Republicans controlled the Congress from 1995 to 2007.
. Doh !

they tried to fix it Diesel. You're liberal pacifist democrats then turned it into a screw the black man, screw the poor issue.You know the drill, you've played that song a few times.

 

[tieguy]

I think DannyBoy would be a great candidate for president...He loves to avoid questions

you have not been here long enough to criticize Danny. Hell you have not been here long enough to launder his jock strap.

 

[diesel96]

Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel96
But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

i will say however, in the first seven and a half years of rule, this Republican party failed to respond to domestic troubles with any effectiveness whatsoever.

Typical "Yellow Dog" style, condemn your opponents for "partisan caricatures" and turn around and that very thing. Classy hypocritical move.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was merely pointing out that you were using partisan caricatures same as everyone else. Get over it.

It the "yellow dog" comment is what has your panties in a wad, I would like to point out that Yellow Dog Democrat is an long used nickname by both sides of the isle. Most Demo's I know kinda take a little pride in the name, Sorry you didn't.
Your's truly and forever,
Rude Dawg.

What you consider "partisan caricatures" are bipartisan facts which may leave brown streaks in your panties cause who knows, you may now feel your party is irrelevent.
My condolences to you and most conservatives who's unaware of the problem the Republican Party has. It has lost track of what it used to stand for: small government, a disciplined fiscal policy, integrity. Maybe you might be coming around to this and it's giving you a chip on your shoulder, so I'll try and be a little more sensitive to your feelings Tex. But have no fear, GW is coming home to roost. yours truly,
Yellow Dawg,
PS Don't know how the Yellow Dog tag fits, I was Rep in the eighties, when I was young and naive.

 

[diesel96]

they tried to fix it Diesel. You're liberal pacifist democrats then turned it into a screw the black man, screw the poor issue.You know the drill, you've played that song a few times.

Republicans didn't fix jack, they made it worse. Again, 12 years of dominance nothing fixed, increased deregulation so to allowed the lenders to close any sweet or sour deal to spur on the housing economy. In the irritating words of Rev Wright "The mortgage lending chickens....have come home to roost".

 

[stringerman85]

you have not been here long enough to criticize Danny. Hell you have not been here long enough to launder his jock strap.

Ok then what right does he have to criticize people and not back it up with correct info. What, you telling me you need seniority on this site to say a damn thing too? c'mon is that all you got?

 

[trplnkl]

What you consider "partisan caricatures" are bipartisan facts which may leave brown streaks in your panties cause who knows, you may now feel your party is irrelevent.
My condolences to you and most conservatives who's unaware of the problem the Republican Party has. It has lost track of what it used to stand for: small government, a disciplined fiscal policy, integrity. Maybe you might be coming around to this and it's giving you a chip on your shoulder, so I'll try and be a little more sensitive to your feelings Tex. But have no fear, GW is coming home to roost. yours truly,
Yellow Dawg,
PS Don't know how the Yellow Dog tag fits, I was Rep in the eighties, when I was young and naive.

I am very aware of the RNC's down fall and what has made them "not my ideal" party. It is indeed the conservatives that believe in smaller government, disciplined fiscal policy, integrity, and many other traits that I aspire to, that have actually been left behind. I had great hopes when W was elected and I feel I have been let down. Does that make me hate him? No. The RNC as it is today is not a conservative bunch, yet they are closer than the DNC. There is just way too many stances that the democratic party stands for that I just can not embrace.
I don't know where your claim of a chip on my shoulder comes from. You speak your mind, I can also. Any chip I may have on my shoulder is directed to the RNC, not you.
I firmly believe that Obama is a dangerous man for the USA on many levels, if he is elected we will all see, right or wrong.

 

[dannyboy]

I think DannyBoy would be a great candidate for president...He loves to avoid questions

as for questions, what was yours again? all i saw was this partisan issue

Ok then what right does he have to criticize people and not back it up with correct info. What, you telling me you need seniority on this site to say a damn thing too? c'mon is that all you got?

stringer

all this posting, and still no question? I think you really did not have a question, only calling into question what was posted, and trying to pass it off as bias.

if you read my posts, i think there is plenty of blame to go around. both parties, all levels of gooberment.

problem is they turned the lending of money into a racial issue. lower the standards so poor minorities can get free money for stuff they can not afford to make payments on.

well guess what, a lot of others got into the give away as well. buying tons of houses with no money down, interest only with balloon payments down the road.

anyone standing in the way of these loans either brought down the ire of our gooberment via fines and trouble, or was labled a racist. so to stand against this problem was not a good thing for a polititian to do, if he wanted to get re-elected.

so yes, both parties are to blame.

as for bush, he promised one thing, but has delivered very little. and like his father, he got everyone to focus on areas outside our country, while our internal issues went out of control.

Everyone said deregulation is the problem. not really.

it was the deregulation, then followed by the regulation that lenders HAD to make this type of loan, mandated by the gooberment. so deregulation followed by more bad regulations is what caused the problems with banking.

of course, any group that can not ballance their checkbooks and overdraws expecting the house bank to cover the debt......can we trust them to regulate the banking industry? lets put the pedophile in charge of the daycare center. that is what we have done.

d

 

[diesel96]

I am very aware of the RNC's down fall and what has made them "not my ideal" party. It is indeed the conservatives that believe in smaller government, disciplined fiscal policy, integrity, and many other traits that I aspire to, that have actually been left behind. I had great hopes when W was elected and I feel I have been let down. Does that make me hate him? No. The RNC as it is today is not a conservative bunch, yet they are closer than the DNC. There is just way too many stances that the democratic party stands for that I just can not embrace.
I don't know where your claim of a chip on my shoulder comes from. You speak your mind, I can also. Any chip I may have on my shoulder is directed to the RNC, not you.
I firmly believe that Obama is a dangerous man for the USA on many levels, if he is elected we will all see, right or wrong.

Fair enough, I appreciate your honesty, and enjoyed our banter (even though we disagree most times)...D

 

[sortaisle]

After chatting with some people last night, I think we've come to the conclusion that the next election might have a very large problem. I tend to think with the way things are going in the Republican party, they might split. And if they don't split, there will be a large voting block...maybe even as much as 20% that will go for a 3rd party. Just a scenario to keep in mind, I don't think it's at all inconceivable.

 

[The Other Side]

I am very aware of the RNC's down fall and what has made them "not my ideal" party. It is indeed the conservatives that believe in smaller government, disciplined fiscal policy, integrity, and many other traits that I aspire to, that have actually been left behind. I had great hopes when W was elected and I feel I have been let down. Does that make me hate him? No. The RNC as it is today is not a conservative bunch, yet they are closer than the DNC. There is just way too many stances that the democratic party stands for that I just can not embrace.
I don't know where your claim of a chip on my shoulder comes from. You speak your mind, I can also. Any chip I may have on my shoulder is directed to the RNC, not you.
I firmly believe that Obama is a dangerous man for the USA on many levels, if he is elected we will all see, right or wrong.

Every 8 years, the republican party tries to re-invent itself. It all begins with the notion that smaller goverment is there idea, and disciplined fiscal policies are a way of life.

However, begining with Nixon, this just wasnt true. He was a spendthrift in vietnam in a losing scenario and this killed the economy as he handed it to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter failed to correct the economy with his dumb policies.

Reagan came in, and OVERSPENT on useless military projects that ran the deficit up to 1.5 trillion dollars for the first time in history. He grew the size of goverment 4 times the size of carter and 8 times the size of Nixon.

Everyone talks about tax cuts from Reagan, yet he raised taxes 4 of the 8 years he was president. His policies of deficit spending wiped out any chance that Bush 1 had of running a good goverment.

Bush 1 eventually had to raise taxes to cover the ever growing debt that continued to grow as Bush 1 maintained Reagans policies.

Bush 1 eventually got the deficit to 3.5 trillion before being tossed out in a blowout to Clinton.

Clinton comes in and "red-pens" all the reagan/bush military cr*p and balances the budget by "cutting" the size of goverment spending and reducing the size of goverment agencies.

Bush 2 comes in, and immediately begins to spend wildly, grows the size of goverment 4 times larger than clinton and after 8 years, grows our deficit to 11.5 trillion and growing everyday.

Now, the USA is having to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from the chinese and Japanese just to pay the interest on the deficit.

We owe China over 500 billion in loans that Bush asked for.

I believe that the ideal that the republicans are the sound fiscal policy party is long over.

I believe that the ideal that the republican party are the party of smaller goverment is a joke.

The american public that are paying attention to our current state of the state see this clearly.

When McCain speaks at his rallies and talks about smaller goverment, I often wonder if his age is affecting his memory?

He is a part of the party that has spent the MOST money of any party in the history of the United States while in control of the goverment. He is a part of the largest growth of goverment in history.

He himself said: "I have voted with the president over 90% percent of the time, more than any other republican".

Now he wants to separate himself from the party of destruction?

This all falls on deaf ears now.

The republicans are in a situation where they either move further to the right or become centrists and closer to the democrats.

If they try to pull everyone to the right, the party will fracture (IMO) and a third party may try and establish themselves.

However, the down side to this is democratic control for years, possibly 16.

Seems like all the republicans have left is Guns, God & Homosexuals to cling to.

The whole patriotism montra stolen from WWII germany isnt working anymore.

Heck, even McCain isnt wearing a flagpin to any events anymore. I dont think he buys it either.

 

[wkmac]

After chatting with some people last night, I think we've come to the conclusion that the next election might have a very large problem. I tend to think with the way things are going in the Republican party, they might split. And if they don't split, there will be a large voting block...maybe even as much as 20% that will go for a 3rd party. Just a scenario to keep in mind, I don't think it's at all inconceivable.

I'm seeing similar things as well Sortaisle. Good observations on your part. Ron Paul, whether you agree or disagree, opened a lot of peoples eyes as he brought both paleo-liberals and paleo-conservatives along with a cross section of various libertarian types together but once he was done, there was no 3rd party figure that was able to maintain those factions together. The only hope is now for the combined 3rd party vote to total towards the 20% mark but not sure if that will happen. It will come down to election day and when people step in to vote.

Towards 2012' however, there is a growing undercurrent of transpartisanship among paleo-libs and paleo-cons as they both realize the Super State has grown to big. Both understand now the best place to govern society is at a local level. It's even growing in the Secessionist movement where in Vermont you have a more traditional liberal/left agenda driving their efforts while other secessionist State movements take various flavors of their own. Overall they all come together annually to discuss the larger movement and to spread ideas among themselves even though politically there are lots of uncommon ground. It comes down to how you run your house is your deal and how I run mine in mine. I happen to be a secessionist advocate myself but then I want to abolish the Constitution and go back to the Articles of confederation so there you go.


Both liberals and conservatives alike are starting to distrust the Super State and it's institutions like the political parties and instead harken back more to original intent of State and local control of matters of society and governance. Leave the federal government to organizing true self defense needs (not overt or covert intervention) and maintaining a fair and just system of trade between the individual states. Beyond that, the States and local communities handle the rest. Paleo's on both sides realize now not to throw out the otherside's (no pun to our own TOS) baby with the bathwater so to speak. As a result, this process is growing into a political alliance that could manifest itself beginning in 2012'.

We'll just have to wait and see. I do think Obama will get elected although anything's possible. However, many democrat's elected to Congress have been more a Reagan democrat model than a radical Bill Ayers if you will democrat so if Obama get's to radical, these democrats that ran locally as a new type conservative will have to oppose Obama in order to stand re-election in 2010'.

BTW: If you want to undertand Obama, forget Bill Ayers, study Saul Alinski and Hillary has a direct link to Saul whereas Obama's link is via disciples.

Also here's a recent op-ed by Justin Raimondo on the GOP and it's future for paleo's. Justin has written extensively about the corrupting of the conservative cause by the new right or what is now called neo-cons.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13592

Every 8 years, the republican party tries to re-invent itself. It all begins with the notion that smaller goverment is there idea, and disciplined fiscal policies are a way of life.

However, begining with Nixon, this just wasnt true.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree but the sad part is you are nothing but another snakeoil salesman yourself selling the same poison rebranded under another name as some great miracle cure!