Wait A Minute!,

[Avenger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2u...layer_embedded

LF

I notice she didn't have a finger for the trillion dollar "Stimulus" plan that hasn't worked as advertised.

[longfisher]

I notice she didn't have a finger for the trillion dollar "Stimulus" plan that hasn't worked as advertised.

Funny.

No, she didn't point that out, and, she should have.

Avenger, the liberal retort would be that the stimulus was too small and that when more was necessary the Republicans were in office and quashed it. But I'm not sure I buy that any more than you do.

There's another thing she didn't mention too. And, that was that the financial meltdown was due to irresponsible and even criminal act by Wall Streeters and that in response to that wrongdoing Bush's TARP and Obama's stimulus were both deemed necessary.

Frankly, I'd have let the banks fail and all those who bought their stock fail along with them. I'd have never stepped in to help GM etc, either. Seems like free market capitalism only works that way if you're not a New York bank that partially owns Congress.

She also didn't mention that Bush had the Feds take over Freddie and Fanny, potentially adding almost 4 trillion to the national debt. I'm still watching that one with dispair.

But I particularly liked the bit about bursting the myth of the rugged individualism that so many rich people cling to about their success. As Warren correctly points out they had a surpport system in which their fortunes grew. That support system was the tax-payer supported United States of America. They didn't do it all alone...because they couldn't.

Not too long ago we had a discussion on this board about that very thing...the myth of rugged individualism and how foreign to those who believe that myth is the concept of taking advantage of tax payer funded help. There was considerable silence on the board when I pointed out that the Coast Guard rescuing distressed boaters and the State Parks and Wildlife free launch ramps and the pavement of the highways on which we trailer our boats and the navigational aids including GPS satellites which help bring us home safely were all examples of where all those supposed rugged individualists took advantage of government funded systems for help.

Why not even the supposed mountain men of the Rockies and settlers who settled the west did so without government help as the government, generally speaking, purchased or won by warfare the land they tred and settled upon and built the forts that based the armies which defended them and established the roads they used to move west and into the mountains.

It's just mythology. No man stands alone. So, why don't we all just stop perpetuating that ridiculous, self-serving and self-aggrandizing myth. It's ain't true now and it ain't ever been true.

LF

[Avenger]

Well Mr. Longfisher once again you're almost right. The financial aspects you're spot-on. On the part of rugged-individualism, you've fallen into the trap of the Marxist/Nihilist philosophy that seeks to undermine American values. Nobody who supports the idea of individual achievment seriously thinks that accomplishment takes place in a vacuum. However you and she paint the idea that because a civilized society builds roads (Which BTW, everybody in that society can use, not just the privilidged) someone who builds a successful business that transports things on those roads has somehow taken unfair advantage of those roads and should be penalized disproportionately. I'm not comparing success to a lottery as Al Gore once did, but the extension of what she's saying is that someone who wins the lottery should have all their winnings taken away and redistributed because everybody who bought a ticket contributed to their success.

Sorry, I'll still cling to the American dream where someone with a better idea who's willing to take the risk and responsibility can be successful without being disproportionately penalized for it. Again, not suggesting that they don't owe a percentage back to the society, but not a bigger percentage than the rest of society. I also understand what you're saying about the bankers and Wall Street typhoons who manipulated things with the assistance of the gov't to enrich themselves. But other than pursuing criminal charges how are you going to avoid catching the American entreprenuer in your net?

[longfisher]

Well Mr. Longfisher once again you're almost right. The financial aspects you're spot-on. On the part of rugged-individualism, you've fallen into the trap of the Marxist/Nihilist philosophy that seeks to undermine American values. Nobody who supports the idea of individual achievment seriously thinks that accomplishment takes place in a vacuum. However you and she paint the idea that because a civilized society builds roads (Which BTW, everybody in that society can use, not just the privilidged) someone who builds a successful business that transports things on those roads has somehow taken unfair advantage of those roads and should be penalized disproportionately. I'm not comparing success to a lottery as Al Gore once did, but the extension of what she's saying is that someone who wins the lottery should have all their winnings taken away and redistributed because everybody who bought a ticket contributed to their success.

Sorry, I'll still cling to the American dream where someone with a better idea who's willing to take the risk and responsibility can be successful without being disproportionately penalized for it. Again, not suggesting that they don't owe a percentage back to the society, but not a bigger percentage than the rest of society. I also understand what you're saying about the bankers and Wall Street typhoons who manipulated things with the assistance of the gov't to enrich themselves. But other than pursuing criminal charges how are you going to avoid catching the American entreprenuer in your net?

I suppose I'll just have to get used to you twisting my words, Avenger, as it's so common for you to do so.

At no point did I suggest that only the priviledged use of the roads or that the businesses that take advantage of our infrastructure are doing so taking unfair advantage of the infrastructure. So, your straw man that I have subsequently suggested that the "successful" be penalized for using infrastructure is just that, an illogical straw man that I choose not to dignify with a response other than to point out that I said nothing of the sort.

Later in your post you say, "Again, not suggesting that they don't owe a percentage back to the society, but not a bigger percentage than the rest of society."

As I understand it, that's precisely the issue in the national debate...there is a substantial amount of wealth in the hands of an exceptionally small percentage of Americans that because it was earned from investments and dividends escapes the same fair "percentage" of taxation under which the middle class suffers. Have you not heard the frequently said phrase, "Many of our most wealthy citizens pay less in percentage of their income than do their secretaries."

This is precisely the inequity around which the "tax the rich" debate is based.

Now to your comment about the bankers. I believe they are true villans and I do believe they should be subject to criminal prosecution. The crimes they committed were as obvious, mendacious and evil as they were enormous. But there's an extortion or, if you like, hostage taking at work today that seeks to blunt those prosecutions. And, Obama is probably dumb enough to fall for it.

It goes something like this...the banks have allowed the housing market to stagnate and they have forced housing prices down by not pursuing foreclosures and/or by foreclosing at a remarkably slow rate. And, they've refused to in good faith renegotiate the loans for homes which are underwater so as to eliminate the potential of owners walking away from their mortgages and putting more homes in foreclosure or pre-foreclosure.

Why would they slow walk foreclosures or renegotiations of loans? Well, so as to hold the housing market hostage. Regrettably, the housing market is largest consumer market in America and a strong job creator when it's healthy. Without it being healthy our economy has a hard time being healthy too.

Why would they want to hold the housing market hostage and, as an extention, the economy hostage? To angle for a no-prosecution settlement with the government where their collosal and criminal wrong-doing will be excused for a small monetary settlement which in magnitude would pale against the amounts they made from their illegal activities and further pale when compared to the damage they've done to the economy.

The Obama Administration is falling all over itself to make this settlement so as to "get the economy going again". It would happen too but for two stalwart State Attorney Generals who aren't going along. One is from New York and the other, recently seditious AG, is from a mid-western state the name of which escapes me for the moment. The banks won't settle without a complete settlement including these two states and the Obama Administration is absolutely apoplectic to get the state AGs in those states to abandon the victims of the bankers in their states and join the settlement. This so the settlement can go forward, the foreclosures can proceed to completion, the housing market can reach a bottom and perhaps climb again and take the economy with it.

Do you see now how mendacious the Bankers are? Do you also see how disgustingly appeasement-minded the Obama Administration is? Do you see how this sort of crap leads people like me to believe there are two sets of justice in America, one for the wealthy and one for the rest of us? Do you see how the system is rigged for the banks, and perhaps for all the super-rich as a result of their influence not only of Congress, but also, of the economy as a whole?

Lastly, about entrepreneurs. You suggest quite incorrectly that I am attempting to ensnare entrepreneurs. My dear fellow boater and fisherman, I am an entrepreneur too. I've been self-employed since 1995 in various business large and small, profitable and barely profitable. So, I'm hardly in the business of snaring anyone, particularly not entrepreneurs.

It you'll cool you jets for a moment I think you'll see that you and I want essentially the same things, justice for the wrongdoing of all criminals, no socially irresponsible hindrances on business activity and equitable and fair tax burdens based on a percentage of income on all that would allow each to contribute to the nation's success according to his means.

LF

[seapower]

Let 10 dog's eat from the same trough. We can argue about what dog will get the most. Some will say it's the smartest, other's the fastest, other's the prettiest, other's the oldest, etc...... You can back up your logic anyway you want. It'll away's be the toughest dog, that get's his fill. It ain't rocket science. Spread that analogy around a whole host of issue's, it'll stand for 95% of them. Frank

[longfisher]

Let 10 dog's eat from the same trough. We can argue about what dog will get the most. Some will say it's the smartest, other's the fastest, other's the prettiest, other's the oldest, etc...... You can back up your logic anyway you want. It'll away's be the toughest dog, that get's his fill. It ain't rocket science. Spread that analogy around a whole host of issue's, it'll stand for 95% of them. Frank

Nothing to argue about in that assessment, Frank, for dogs anyway. That is, it works that way unless the owner intercedes to ensure that all get enough food to ensure adequate nutrition for all.

Human societies work a bit more like when the owner (government) intercedes, don't you agree?

LF

[seapower]

The future and Cov't generally go the way the "toughest" lead. After all, isn't that how this Country got it's start? By a handfull of "tough guy's" that took a stand and moved out on their conviction's. No I really don't see us being very much different than the dog analogy. Sorry, in the big picture, it's pretty much the same. I guess one can make the arguement that "their" Gov't made it better, but in the long run it still goes back to the toughest dog. Maybe too simple for some. Many of us have just learned to get an extra bite when the "top pooch" is sleeping. Frank

[Avenger]

I suppose I'll just have to get used to you twisting my words, Avenger, as it's so common for you to do so.

At no point did I suggest that only the priviledged use of the roads or that the businesses that take advantage of our infrastructure are doing so taking unfair advantage of the infrastructure. So, your straw man that I have subsequently suggested that the "successful" be penalized for using infrastructure is just that, an illogical straw man that I choose not to dignify with a response other than to point out that I said nothing of the sort.

Later in your post you say, "Again, not suggesting that they don't owe a percentage back to the society, but not a bigger percentage than the rest of society."

As I understand it, that's precisely the issue in the national debate...there is a substantial amount of wealth in the hands of an exceptionally small percentage of Americans that because it was earned from investments and dividends escapes the same fair "percentage" of taxation under which the middle class suffers. Have you not heard the frequently said phrase, "Many of our most wealthy citizens pay less in percentage of their income than do their secretaries."............................


.............................Lastly, about entrepreneurs. You suggest quite incorrectly that I am attempting to ensnare entrepreneurs. My dear fellow boater and fisherman, I am an entrepreneur too. I've been self-employed since 1995 in various business large and small, profitable and barely profitable. So, I'm hardly in the business of snaring anyone, particularly not entrepreneurs.

It you'll cool you jets for a moment I think you'll see that you and I want essentially the same things, justice for the wrongdoing of all criminals, no socially irresponsible hindrances on business activity and equitable and fair tax burdens based on a percentage of income on all that would allow each to contribute to the nation's success according to his means.

LF

Not twisting at all. You quoted the video, she made the reference to roads and a number of other things i.e. education as being from the public's investment. You observed that nobody ever accomplished anything without some government support, specifically mentioned boat ramps (a public construction akin to roads) so I was using one of her leftist observations as an example under the assumption that your statements appeared to agree with hers. Neither of us has the time to get into every single point, I just used roads as an example.

But the problem with the debate that I'm seeing is that the "tax the rich" argument only centers on those that make more than $X per year. That's not going after the fat cats you describe and I think we can agree on, it's a broad-faced hammer that's going to crush the entreprenuer as well.

[Avenger]

Nothing to argue about in that assessment, Frank, for dogs anyway. That is, it works that way unless the owner intercedes to ensure that all get enough food to ensure adequate nutrition for all.

Human societies work a bit more like when the owner (government) intercedes, don't you agree?

LF

They work better when the owner (government) makes sure one isn't stealing from the others. Not when they decide who gets what.

Perhaps not exactly what you meant, but there is a distinction I hope you can see without accusing me of twisting words.