PDA

View Full Version : Census - Smooth Move, Dumbasses


Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 07:47 AM
I just found this too funny not to comment on.

You've probably heard about how several Conservatives are declaring that the Census is an evil tactic by Obama to get personal information from you. People like Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (who is right at the top of my 'People I Despise' list) have been insisting that the census is an invasion of privacy and part of Obama's Socialist plan - despite the fact that we have had a Census in this country every 10 years since 1790 (damn those Socialist Founding Fathers!!) Now it turns out that the Conservative Blow Hards (Rush, Savage, Beck, Hannity, the list goes on - and on - and on) should have researched just what the Census DOES for the country before declaring it evil.

Besides helping the Government allocate how much money to send to each district, the Census also has a key role in determining how many Congressmen a given state will get! That's right, by telling their constituents to "Not Take Part In The Census," these idiots are effectively diminishing their political power! In states like Minnesota (where Bachman comes from) this won't have an effect as it is a liberal state - usually - and they are doing just fine on returned Census forms despite her idiocy, but several wealthy districts in the state may face serious monetary challenges when their Bachman-influenced residents refuse to send in their Census forms! Of course, I'm sure this will be blamed on Obama in some way or another. However, states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida, of which one is pure Red politically and the other two are considered battleground states, are in serious danger of losing congressional seats thanks to this new move by Conservatives to dissuade their sheople from participating in the 2010 Census.

Way To Go, DUMBASSES!

Lokela
04-29-2010, 08:55 AM
Well, this Texan sent in his census form. Fun fact: while Texas is a "red state", it's capital is "blue".

Choopy
04-29-2010, 09:36 AM
I would like to see references to these statements these blow hards have made urging people not to send in their forms.
Not one person you listed has claimed that the census is socialist. They have all acknowledged that it is in the Constitution,
The data gathered from the Census has been abused for years by politicians in the way they use the demographic data to cherry pick areas in the way of redistricting. This is not done to better serve the people, but to ensure job security.
I've heard these 'blow hards' say that the massive hiring recently was used to mitigate bad press form the excessive unemployment by tauting the surge in temporary workers as an economic turnaround. I've heard them say that some of the information requested is intrusive. This seems to be the big issue to many on the right.
I've not heard them say not to send in the forms. In fact, Rush advocated sending it in but being snarky about the race category.
There are some lesser known people who have advocated living in a shack in Montana and not sending in the Census form. Where the confusion comes in is that when one particular radio host claimed this, there were calls for him to be arrested.
Bachmann, Malkin and others have stood up for his right to 'say' that and not be arrested (that pesky 1st amendment thing again). They also have acknowledged that that Census is Constitutionally mandated.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 09:46 AM
0ZS9UW0okY4

Choopy
04-29-2010, 10:01 AM
Nowhere in there does she or Beck say not to fill it out.
Beck says he is going to fill out his and her concerns are pretty legitimate in my opinion.
They outline the consequences of not filling it out.
Where is the problem?

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 10:04 AM
http://www.restlus.com/2010/04/socialist-census-forms.html

http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/why-you-should-worry-about-the-census/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/43450

http://speaknowamerica.org/2009/03/28/acorn-fraud--2010-census.aspx

http://politicalape.com/2010/03/20/constitutionalists-2010-census-the-fines-fees-and-such-are-bluff-and-fear-mongering/

http://animalnewyork.com/2010/03/socialist-document-delivered-to-americans-homes/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200902200014

http://vodpod.com/watch/3351256-rush-limbaugh-on-obamas-census-form-what-race-does-he-put-down

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102808/content/01125107.guest.html

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 10:14 AM
Again and again, people are saying to fill out the bare minimum info. Bachman has CERTAINLY said that she will not fill hers out:

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann told the Washington Times that she and her family will not be fully filling out the 2010 census forms.

Bachmann, a Republican, said her family will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because "the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that."

Taken from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5095844-503544.html

She is the leading voice right now of the Wacko right and their weird agenda. Rush has been actively instructing people to fill out their forms incorrectly, and Beck has agreed that the forms are 'Unconstitutional.' Frankly, it seems like they are jumping onto every little thing that can be tweaked to be seen as controversial.

Here is a link to the 2000 census form (http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2000quest.html) - you know.. The one sent out under a REPUBLICAN White House and the one that NO ONE seemed to have an issue with. As you can see - It's asking the SAME FUCKING questions that the 2010 one does - the big issue in the difference is that they gave MORE options on the 2010 form!!! Which has PISSED off Conservatives?!?!?!

When Bachman complains that they ask for your *gasp* TELEPHONE NUMBER!!! I must ask, did she throw this hissy fit in 2000? After all, in 2000 she was just entering her Senate Career, what a PERFECT time to bring up this very important subject that she is now so inflamed by. Yet, we heard nary a peep from her then. Why is it now such an invasive form and so horribly unconstitutional? I'll tell you why: because there's a Democrat in the White House and that is the ONLY reason. Fucking ridiculous.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 10:22 AM
The other big problem that Conservatives have with the Census is that it asks your race! This has been the big problem (with Rush telling people to pick NATIVE AMERICAN because he is an idiot.) And they make it sound as if this is something new and intrusive. I invite you all to click this LINK (http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d02p.pdf)and scroll down to page three question six.... SEE!!! There it is. The SAME MOTHER FUCKING QUESTION! But the Conservative gas bags will have you believe that this is the first time we've ever been asked such an intrusive question! BULL SHIT! BULL SHIT!!!!! So for anyone out there who is getting all riled up about how Obama and his Acorn Army are going to storm into your house and ask you unconstitutional questions... Why the FUCK are they only yelling about this NOW?! Why weren't they marching in the streets in 2000?

Choopy
04-29-2010, 10:54 AM
http://www.restlus.com/2010/04/socialist-census-forms.html


This is obviously a tongue in cheek commentary

http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/why-you-should-worry-about-the-census/


This actually brings up legitimate questions with a misleading title.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/43450


Thought provoking issue

http://speaknowamerica.org/2009/03/28/acorn-fraud--2010-census.aspx


Guess they were right be concerned about ACORN.....

http://politicalape.com/2010/03/20/constitutionalists-2010-census-the-fines-fees-and-such-are-bluff-and-fear-mongering/


I'm not reading the rest.... these do not say not to fill out the forms!

http://animalnewyork.com/2010/03/socialist-document-delivered-to-americans-homes/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200902200014

http://vodpod.com/watch/3351256-rush-limbaugh-on-obamas-census-form-what-race-does-he-put-down



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102808/content/01125107.guest.html

Ok, I read this one and there is no mention of the Census at all.


Here is one person complaining about the same things in 2000
http://www.perkel.com/politics/census.htm

Colbert and Stewert mocking the 2000 Census.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-21-2000/colbert---census-2000

Every Dems favorite person, Karl Rove stared in a Census ad.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031110/content/01125113.guest.html Rush is not telling people to fill it out wrong.

Aside from Bachmann saying she is not filling it out, everything else here is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 11:02 AM
Rush says to pick other and write in American. See link above. He does not say to pick Native American. 2000 was the first year that race was on the census and it was a big deal then as well .

Obama wants the Census to be managed by his staffers. How is not something to cause concern? How is it not of concern that "Republican" areas will not be as attended to when there is a Democrat in office? How is it not concerning that ACORN, who had a history of shady tactics, would be part of something that is supposed to nonpartisan?
The Constitution mandates that the census be completed per laws created by Congress. So claims that this is unconstitutional are not valid, but disagreements over the laws are definitely up for debate.

The concerns that residency status is not asked is pretty serious. I read a few stats that CA could lose 9 Congressional seats if illegals were not counted and TX would lose 4. This is why people are so concerned. These numbers are misused to abuse power.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 11:06 AM
I don't understand what Colbert and Stewart doing a comedy bit about the Census has anything to do with Limbaugh insisting that people choose Native American instead of a race (which IS filling it out wrong, despite whatever cookery logic people choose to employ. It's like people from Indiana insisting that they are Indian because the name is similar.) And if the point is to try and say that the Daily Show was critical of the 2000 census but not the 2010 census... well, they made fun of the recent one as well:

http://www.videosurf.com/videos/2010+Census?providers=111

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/04/daily-show-2010-census.html
(http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/04/daily-show-2010-census.html)

The first link is filled with jokes about the census, where as the second link was making fun of people that follow Bachman's advice - I just thought it was too funny not to include.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 11:25 AM
What frustrates me about these types of conversations is that is turns into a pissing match. When a Liberal reads that 'Conservative' said something, it is immediately dismissed as wacky. The same is true on the other side.
There are serious issues that have long term and serious ramifications. They should be debated on the issues and facts, not with fear-mongering and character assassinations.

Anything ACORN ever touched should be suspect. How much money the government is spending is something to discuss. Whether the government should collect such detailed information and what they do with it should be for us to decide as they work for us.

One of your links above have a quote from Plato: The price of apathy in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

I don't care what party you are affiliated with. Hell, in the 4 Presidential elections I have voted in, only 2 were for Republicans.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 11:29 AM
RUSH: So I want you to check the box that says "other" and write in "American."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031110/content/01125113.guest.html

You are frustrating me.

The point is that there are issues that should be debated. Not attempts to discredit who said them.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 11:29 AM
What frustrates me about these types of conversations is that is turns into a pissing match. When a Liberal reads that 'Conservative' said something, it is immediately dismissed as wacky. The same is true on the other side.
There are serious issues that have long term and serious ramifications. They should be debated on the issues and facts, not with fear-mongering and character assassinations.

Anything ACORN ever touched should be suspect. How much money the government is spending is something to discuss. Whether the government should collect such detailed information and what they do with it should be for us to decide as they work for us.

One of your links above have a quote from Plato: The price of apathy in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

I don't care what party you are affiliated with. Hell, in the 4 Presidential elections I have voted in, only 2 were for Republicans.

I agree, and that is pretty much my entire point here! Debating the issue of the Census is completely different from announcing on a National TV show that you support NOT filling out your census form because they are going to use it against you!!! I think the question at heart here is, if you and all the Republicans are so pissed about the 2010 census, then why weren't you throwing a fit back in 2000?!

Choopy
04-29-2010, 11:52 AM
Again, you are not debating the issue at hand. you are trying to discredit the argument.

Personally, I was 22 in 2000 and was pretty ignorant and apathetic on this issue. Like I said, I voted for Harry Browne in 2000.

I do remember hearing Rush talk about the race questions then. See, this is another area your argument doesn't hold up. Conservatives are not like Liberals and follow the leader blindly. Conservatives are critical of government anytime it steps on our toes.

As far as Bachmann, her point that the census was used to round up Japanese citizens is something to consider. Not because I think Obama is going to round up all Conservatives and intern them, but as a reminder that the government is not always right and needs to be in check when it does get out of hand.

I don't think her outright claiming to break the law is a good idea, but it is not representative of all Conservatives.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Conservatives are not like Liberals and follow the leader blindly. Conservatives are critical of government anytime it steps on our toes.



ARG! I HOPE you just wrote that to try and get a rise out of me. If we have seen ANYTHING over the course of the past 9 years it is EXACTLY that Conservatives tend to blindly follow (Iraq war anyone? Anyone?) and Liberals are the ones that question their leaders. All of the Liberal radio hosts I listen to are incensed by many of the things the Obama Administration has done or has failed to do.

You say that you don't like these sorts of debates because all people do are hurl insults at each other, then you declare that Liberals blindly follow their leaders. A R G! ! ! ! !

Choopy
04-29-2010, 12:23 PM
LOL. Had to get a dig in.

But yes, I do feel that way.

I will speak for myself here. I liked Bush at first. I hated him by the time he left office. The Iraq war for one.(Not for the same reasons you might think - no wait, we have discussed this) The bailouts. The fiscal irresponsibility. His ineffectiveness.
I also have a propensity for conspiracy theories as well.
Oil prices under Bush..... need I say more to a liberal audience? Unwillingness to finish the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem is that Obama's list is much longer. I am suspicious of their use of the census data. Politicizing SEC crackdowns, 'Coincidental' disaster of off shore drilling after Obama 'endorses' the practice. Obama's eligibility to even be president. ACORN. Chicago politics. I also hate that he will not admit that he is a socialist or at least has socialist tenancies. I think a lot of his supported are like you when you said that it's not such a bad thing. I disagree fervently, but at least call it for what it is. I just watched a news clip where he says "At some point, I think you've made enough" talking about people earning money. If that isn't socialist, I don't know what is.

As far as everyone else, do you have any idea what happened when McCain won the nomination? Rush, Savage, Mueller, and countless others refused to support him. The some chapters of the Tea Party endorse Democrat candidates. They refuse to be a stooge of the Republican party.

I've never seen Liberals walk away from their candidates. Clinton was impeached, lost his license to practice law, committed adultery, defiled the office of President, put our troops at risk to eliminate media coverage of himself and he is damn neat as popular as JFK.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 12:41 PM
I've never seen Liberals walk away from their candidates. Clinton was impeached, lost his license to practice law, committed adultery, defiled the office of President, put our troops at risk to eliminate media coverage of himself and he is damn neat as popular as JFK.

Can we please weigh the differences here?
Clinton = cheated on his wife.
Bush = lied to Americans and dragged us into an unnecessary war that has killed 4394 soldiers and 654,965 Iraqis. And the official wounded count (not including mental illness attributed to war) 31790

Sorry buddy, but given those two options, I'll go with the guy that likes some side action every single time over the guy who's definition of side action is bombing a country.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 01:04 PM
I just watched a news clip where he says "At some point, I think you've made enough" talking about people earning money. If that isn't socialist, I don't know what is.



Ahhh yet another example of how politics in this country has been dumbed down to single line quotes that are taken out of context to create a sound bite to be fed to the masses. In actuality, Obama clearly stated in that speech that he in no way wants to keep people from making money - his OPINION (and I share that opinion) is that at a certain point maybe you've made enough money... seriously - do these guys need more money?
* Bill Gates (USA) - $53 billion, Microsoft
* Warren Buffett (USA) - $47 billion, Berkshire Hathaway
* Larry Ellison (USA) - $28 billion, Oracle
* Christy Walton & family (USA) - $22.5 billion, Walmart
* Jim Walton (USA) - $20.7 billion, Walmart
* Alice Walton (USA) - $20.6 billion, Walmart
* S. Robson Walton (USA) - $19.8 billion, Walmart

But the point of the speech was that they are not interested in stopping people from making money if that is their goal in life. Here is the speech in full without sound bites being pulled to be played on Faux News.

THE PRESIDENT: They made bets. They were making bets on what was going to happen in the housing market, and they would create these derivatives and all these instruments that nobody understood. But it was basically operating like a big casino. And it was producing big profits and big bonuses for them, but it was all built on shaky economics and some of these subprime loans that had been given out. And because we did not have common-sense rules in place, those irresponsible practices came awfully close to bringing down our entire economy and millions of dreams along with it.

We had a system where some on Wall Street could take these risks without fear of failure, because they keep the profits when it was working, and as soon as it went south, they expected you to cover their losses. So it was one of those heads, they tail -- tails, you lose.

So they failed to consider that behind every dollar that they traded, all that leverage they were generating, acting like it was Monopoly money, there were real families out who were trying to finance a home, or pay for their child's college, or open a business, or save for retirement. So what's working fine for them wasn't working for ordinary Americans. And we've learned that clearly. It doesn't work out fine for the country. It's got to change. (Applause.)

Now, what we're doing -- I want to be clear, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. (Laughter.) But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or you're providing a good service. We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy.

I've said this before. I've said this on Wall Street just last week. I believe in the power of the free market. And I believe in a strong financial system. And when it's working right, financial institutions, they help make possible families buying homes, and businesses growing, and new ideas taking flight. An entrepreneur may have a great idea, but he may need to borrow some money to make it happen. It would be hard for a lot of us to buy a house -- our first house, at least, if we weren't able to take out a mortgage.

So there's nothing wrong with a financial system that helps the economy expand. And there are a lot of good people in the financial industry who are doing things the right way. And it's in our interest when those firms are strong and when they're healthy.

But some of these institutions that operated irresponsibly, they're not just threatening themselves -- they threaten the whole economy. And they threaten your dreams, your prospects, everything that you worked so hard to build.

So we just want them to operate in a way that's fair and honest and in the open, so that we don't have to go through what we've already gone through. (Applause.) We want to make sure the financial system doesn't just work for Wall Street, but it works for Main Street, too. It works for Quincy. It works for Mount Pleasant. It works for Macon and Fort Madison. (Applause.)

There you have it - the entire conversation, not just the sound bite that the rabid idiots at Fox can grab onto and say over and over. Read the next couple lines after the infamous sound bite and you can clearly see that he is saying that people should have the right to make money as long as they are doing it responsibly.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 01:07 PM
Clinton was impeached, lost his license to practice law, committed adultery, defiled the office of President, put our troops at risk to eliminate media coverage of himself

Uhhh... you missed a few.

Clinton did bomb a country to distract from his side action.

At the onset, it felt like the war was necessary. As it played out, it was probably as self serving as Clinton's wag the dog ploy.

But neither of these guys will have to legacy of Obama. I'll tell you what is frustrating about Obama. While he gets the brunt of the shit, the fact is that about half of the country agrees with him. That is mind boggling that so many people can want things that are so destructive to this great country.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 01:29 PM
Uhhh... you missed a few.

Clinton did bomb a country to distract from his side action.

At the onset, it felt like the war was necessary. As it played out, it was probably as self serving as Clinton's wag the dog ploy.

But neither of these guys will have to legacy of Obama. I'll tell you what is frustrating about Obama. While he gets the brunt of the shit, the fact is that about half of the country agrees with him. That is mind boggling that so many people can want things that are so destructive to this great country.

I see it 100% differently. I see a country who got so caught up in Money Money Money that they didn't give a shit who they stepped on to make that money. Reaganomics is a perfect example of what happens when you make money more important then people. What use is it to say that we have the richest country in the world when the gulf between the rich and the poor is more dramatic here then nearly anywhere else in the world. Why is having more money in our pockets more important then ensuring that every child in the USA receives adequate healthcare? Why is it more important for the rich to have a third vacation home then it is for an estimated 750,000 people to have a single bed to sleep in? When people rail on about how Obama is killing the USA, I would love to see ONE example of how he is doing this that is bad for the country as a whole versus just tougher on the richest people's pocket book.

Here's some quick facts to lay out here. Median household income in the USA is $50,303. That's a long ass way from $250K! In fact, just 2.1 percent of households make over $250K a year. http://www.newsweek.com/id/232964

Here's another FACT. Despite the way the Right have tried to claim that Obama is raising taxes higher then they have ever been before, that is an out right lie. All he is doing is repealing the tax CUTS that Bush imposed. So we will go back to the tax levels that existed in the 1990s. The argument against "raising" taxes is that it will hurt the economy - right? That's what all those dumbfuck righties on TV keep saying. They say that you're punishing the hard workers and that they will just stop working... Wellllll, you're all wrong on that one. The 1990's saw some of the most dramatic growth we have ever encountered in the USA. Median household income went up, and the rich did jussst fine. Then Bush came along and reimposed many of Reagan's wonderful tax laws and the rich started getting richer while the middle class got poor again.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Change_in_US_household_wealth_1946-2007.gif

That's what the Republicans stand for - the rich get richer while the middle class just needs to buck up and figure out a way to get rich.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 01:47 PM
To quote the great philosopher, James Hatfield: You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say

I saw the whole speech. I saw his body language when he said that. He was very adamant about my one line quote. He him-hawed when he reluctantly said his disclaimer. This was not taken out of context to distort what he meant. He means that at a certain point, a person has "enough" money.

Who decides how much is enough? What if enough was determined to be half of what you earn? That is bullshit and not what this country is about. The Obama's made $5M i think last year. Who needs $5 million dollars? I do fine on a fraction of that. What should the cap be? $100M? $1B? Why not just make everyone have the same income. That would be fair.

Bill Gates (USA) - $53 billion, Microsoft
93000 employees plus the countless contractors, and jobs that have been enabled from his companies innovations.
Yearly revenue: $58B

* Warren Buffett (USA) - $47 billion, Berkshire Hathaway
246,000 employees
Yearly revenue $107B

* Larry Ellison (USA) - $28 billion, Oracle
102,000 employees
Yearly revenue $25B

* Christy Walton & family (USA) - $22.5 billion, Walmart
2,100,000 employees!!!
Yearly revenue $404B

* Jim Walton (USA) - $20.7 billion, Walmart
* Alice Walton (USA) - $20.6 billion, Walmart
* S. Robson Walton (USA) - $19.8 billion, Walmart

Are you kidding me? 2,500,000 direct jobs created by these people (not to mention the countless jobs that exist as a result of these companies) and they don't deserve a return on their work, sacrifice, ingenuity, and investment?

This is the way it is supposed to work. For every Gates, Ellison, and Walton, there are 1000's people who tried and failed. There has to be a payoff to incentivise this behavior and reward the risk.

You will see. ... I assure you that your mind will change somewhat.

I am inspired by Gates and Buffett. I see that that potential exists and is a real possibility for me. I would not feel the same if there were some arbitrary cap on what could be achieved. That mentality would destroy all of the innovation we enjoy in our lives.

Look at the difference between you and I. You made different decisions than I made. You have a different life than I have. Why should I be entitled to what you have? I chose a different path from the time I was 16. I took risks since then. They didn't pan out. Sam Walton, Bill Gates, and the rest of the successful people risked being where I am now to do what they did. Should they have to give it up just because they were better than me? Should you be penalized because I had a kid at a young age and didn't finish college or peruse the same career you did? You took risks by having a 1099 job. You took a risk by not finishing school to peruse a career. They panned out.Should you eat turkey shit sausages, watch a 21" TV, and buy a smaller house because other people don't want to work as hard as you or take the risks you did?

I say no. I understood the risks I was taking. I enjoy the opportunity that I have to try again. And that is what is at risk with some of these practices that Obama, you and others are preaching.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 01:50 PM
Then why don't you buy a bed for one of the 750,000 instead of a projector?

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 02:07 PM
NO ONE is saying that once you reach a certain monetary number that your income gets shut off. NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT yet that is what it seems like you are railing against. The increases for the wealthy are around 2% more then the "middle" class. That's it!!!! So the Bill Gates of the world (bad example because he has been overly generous with his billions - because he realizes that there is no way in hell he can ever spend that amount of money, he has given BILLIONS to charity) can continue making more and more and more and more.

Here is a fact that seems to be lost on the Right side of politics: There is only SO much money (unless you live in China where they seem to just print money as needed, but that's a different rant.) This means that as the wealthy gain more capital that leaves less for the rest of us. This is the very definition of how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. When Bush gave TAX CUTS to the wealthy he allowed the poor to get poorer because the rich just got richer.

Here is the explanation that Republicans give again and again about letting the wealthy have more money. They say that by giving more money to the rich, more jobs are created because the rich use their extra money to create new business. Neat-O! But it's not true. Job Growth has been shown to have zilch to do with how much money the richest people in the USA make. Otherwise, the Clinton years would have yielded less jobs then the Reagan years - not the case. Job Growth in the USA during the 1990's was 38.6%. And that's despite the horrible first couple years under Bush Sr. Then ole Jr steps in and job growth PLUMMETED! What HAS been proven true is that diversifying wealth helps to stimulate OVER-ALL growth throughout the financial system. Think of it this way... By giving more money to the wealthy, you are hoping that they will go create new jobs by building new and successful businesses - of course, we know that some of this money is just going to end up in bank accounts, squirrelled away for their families future generations. Now, if you give more money to the poor and middle class, then something really interesting happens. The poor and middle class have a decision to make with that money. They can use it to start new business, or they can spend it on frivolous things (very few poor and middle class families squirrel away their money in the USA.) If they start a business and it fails, then guess who ends up with their money... That's right, the rich people who sold the poor and middle class entrepreneur the stuff they needed to start the business. So, the rich people get the money anyhow, it just takes a little longer. What happens when the poor and middle class fellow spends the money frivolously? Well what the hell do you know, the rich guy ends up with it again, and pretty quickly too I might add. So, what is the outcome of giving the money to the poor and middle class first? You end up with a few more big screen tvs in low income houses, a few failed businesses, and a few start-up companies that do great and help a poor or middle class person raise themselves up out of that status. Why is that wrong???

The rich are always getting richer in this country, and Obama isn't trying to stop that from happening. He just realizes that if you allow the precipitous rate at which it has climbed in the past decade to continue, you will end up with a nation devoid of a middle class.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 02:22 PM
Then why don't you buy a bed for one of the 750,000 instead of a projector?

Seriously? We're not actually going to take this debate to that level, are we? I guess your point is that since I'm a bleeding heart liberal I should sell everything I own and give it all away.

The debate here is that I have no problem with the government taking a portion of what I earn and giving it out amongst my neighbors who do not earn as much as I do versus others who do not wish that to happen. The debate is not whether I deserve to own nice things - that has never been the debate.

I have no desire to go into what level of income I personally enjoy, but I will say that I am subject to higher tax rates then the average family - and I am 100% okay with that. As long as the money is being used to HELP my neighbors instead of bombing them, I am okay with it. Call me a Socialist if you want to, but I like the idea of spreading wealth around and ensuring that people across this nation have a good life. Or maybe what we should do is all live in gated communities and slowly turn this country into what Jamaica has become, where the walls keep out the disparate masses.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 02:43 PM
...By giving more money to the wealthy, ...

Here is the flaw in your argument.
When you say "by giving more money to the wealthy" what you are talking about is not taking more of their own hard earned money away from them.

Also, when Obama says the word enough, that implys that there is an amount beyond which that person should not have. I'm not saying they will shut off income beyond an amount, but they will tax it so that it is effectively shut off. The increases on the rich are far more than 2%. Factor in the increases on the dividend tax, capital gains tax, death tax, etc. Then there are talks of VAT.
Personally, the only fair way to do this is a Fair Tax. Eliminate the income, capital gains, dividend, excise, death, and all the other taxes and tax only consumption. That way the rich, who buy more things that cost more are taxed appropriately and fairly.No loopholes. No rebates, credits, or other shenanigans. Everyone pays their fair share.

While there is a finite amount of physical dollars, there is not a finite amount of wealth. So I want to know how Bill Gates having $55B dollars is taking anything away from anyone. He doesn't have all of that money stashed away under a mattress. he has it invested where it is used as leverage for other people to start businesses, buy houses, and such. That is on paper for him, the bank, and the loanee.

This is how wealth is created. If Microsoft's stock goes up, his worth goes up. This is not taking a dollar from a poor person and in fact offers more dollars that the middle class and poor have access to.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 02:56 PM
Here is the flaw in your argument.
When you say "by giving more money to the wealthy" what you are talking about is not taking more of their own hard earned money away from them.

Also, when Obama says the word enough, that implys that there is an amount beyond which that person should not have. I'm not saying they will shut off income beyond an amount, but they will tax it so that it is effectively shut off. The increases on the rich are far more than 2%. Factor in the increases on the dividend tax, capital gains tax, death tax, etc. Then there are talks of VAT.
Personally, the only fair way to do this is a Fair Tax. Eliminate the income, capital gains, dividend, excise, death, and all the other taxes and tax only consumption. That way the rich, who buy more things that cost more are taxed appropriately and fairly.No loopholes. No rebates, credits, or other shenanigans. Everyone pays their fair share.

While there is a finite amount of physical dollars, there is not a finite amount of wealth. So I want to know how Bill Gates having $55B dollars is taking anything away from anyone. He doesn't have all of that money stashed away under a mattress. he has it invested where it is used as leverage for other people to start businesses, buy houses, and such. That is on paper for him, the bank, and the loanee.

This is how wealth is created. If Microsoft's stock goes up, his worth goes up. This is not taking a dollar from a poor person and in fact offers more dollars that the middle class and poor have access to.

So then what is your solution to the widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country? Under YOUR elected leaders we watched this country's divide grow deeper. Median household income on average went way down, yet the average income of the richest 2% went UP. With YOUR laws, this would become far, FAR more pronounced, leaving us with an average household income far lower then it is today, with the richest people owning everything. Your solution is a precursor to revolution (ie French Revolution.)

Choopy
04-29-2010, 03:02 PM
Seriously? We're not actually going to take this debate to that level, are we? I guess your point is that since I'm a bleeding heart liberal I should sell everything I own and give it all away.

The debate here is that I have no problem with the government taking a portion of what I earn and giving it out amongst my neighbors who do not earn as much as I do versus others who do not wish that to happen. The debate is not whether I deserve to own nice things - that has never been the debate.

I have no desire to go into what level of income I personally enjoy, but I will say that I am subject to higher tax rates then the average family - and I am 100% okay with that. As long as the money is being used to HELP my neighbors instead of bombing them, I am okay with it. Call me a Socialist if you want to, but I like the idea of spreading wealth around and ensuring that people across this nation have a good life. Or maybe what we should do is all live in gated communities and slowly turn this country into what Jamaica has become, where the walls keep out the disparate masses.

I absolutely am taking it there.
My point was rhetorical, not an inquiry into your income.
You work hard, made the right choices, certain risks you took went in your favor. You deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labor. The same is true of Gates and company. It's easy to point at them, I'm just saying that while you may not have billions, the same principles apply to you. You are advocating that the rich sell everything they have and give it to the poor. However, you are unwilling to do the same. You say they don't need 3 vacation homes, dj says you don't need a 92" TV. It's all a mater of perspective. The problem is that it's all good and dandy, but these things you are fighting for are going to bite you in the ass one day.

We grew up in the same economic situation. We both saw the Munster (a neighboring rich town) kids driving their brand new cars while you drove a used Nova and I had a 1980 Impala. I never was jealous. I never thought they shouldn't have those cars. I always saw that as inspiration. That made me believe that I too could achieve that level of economic success.

If you want to contribute more to the disenfranchised, you are free to do so through church and other charities. Why is it necessary to force people to do so? Your higher than average tax confiscations are going towards bombing people. Why shouldn't you keep that and distribute it as you see fit? That is the basis for my point of view.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 03:12 PM
I absolutely am taking it there.
My point was rhetorical, not an inquiry into your income.
You work hard, made the right choices, certain risks you took went in your favor. You deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labor. The same is true of Gates and company. It's easy to point at them, I'm just saying that while you may not have billions, the same principles apply to you. You are advocating that the rich sell everything they have and give it to the poor. However, you are unwilling to do the same. You say they don't need 3 vacation homes, dj says you don't need a 92" TV. It's all a mater of perspective. The problem is that it's all good and dandy, but these things you are fighting for are going to bite you in the ass one day.

We grew up in the same economic situation. We both saw the Munster (a neighboring rich town) kids driving their brand new cars while you drove a used Nova and I had a 1980 Impala. I never was jealous. I never thought they shouldn't have those cars. I always saw that as inspiration. That made me believe that I too could achieve that level of economic success.

If you want to contribute more to the disenfranchised, you are free to do so through church and other charities. Why is it necessary to force people to do so? Your higher than average tax confiscations are going towards bombing people. Why shouldn't you keep that and distribute it as you see fit? That is the basis for my point of view.

NO, that's not at ALL the argument here. You're twisting my words around to make it look like I'm a greedy dick and should just shut up and join all the other greedy dicks. I have NEVER complained about the things that rich people own - more power to them. I love knowing that the harder I work, the nicer things I can buy for myself. My issue is that I also see the value in allowing my government to use taxes to help my fellow man.

You are saying that raising taxes is the same thing as stealing money out of my pocket, and I disagree with that viewpoint. When you accuse me of being greedy by trying to save up and buy a new TV, you are trying to say that my bleeding heart should compel me to take that money and give it to the poor, because - in your mind - that is the same thing that raising taxes does. That is, in fact, NOT the same thing as raising taxes. By giving money directly to the poor, I would be choosing to do a selfless act that helps one person - or in the case of a charity, one charity. By not pitching a bitch session when my taxes get raised a tiny amount, I am allowing more funds to be allocated towards the betterment of the country that I live in. Is the money always used properly? Hell no. But the hope is, if we have elected the right people into office, that the majority of our money WILL go to help create a better environment for our children to grow up in - it WILL put more cops on the streets to keep us safe - it WILL build better schools and pay better teachers - etc Etc ETC.

Recent history has proven to me that giving tax breaks to the rich is a sure fire way to hurt the majority of people in this country. Allowing the richest 2% of people in the USA to incur a slightly higher tax rate will help 98% of people in the country. That's an easy fucking decision to make.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 03:30 PM
NO, that's not at ALL the argument here. You're twisting my words around to make it look like I'm a greedy dick and should just shut up and join all the other greedy dicks. I have NEVER complained about the things that rich people own - more power to them. I love knowing that the harder I work, the nicer things I can buy for myself. My issue is that I also see the value in allowing my government to use taxes to help my fellow man.

You are saying that raising taxes is the same thing as stealing money out of my pocket, and I disagree with that viewpoint. When you accuse me of being greedy by trying to save up and buy a new TV, you are trying to say that my bleeding heart should compel me to take that money and give it to the poor, because - in your mind - that is the same thing that raising taxes does. That is, in fact, NOT the same thing as raising taxes. By giving money directly to the poor, I would be choosing to do a selfless act that helps one person - or in the case of a charity, one charity. By not pitching a bitch session when my taxes get raised a tiny amount, I am allowing more funds to be allocated towards the betterment of the country that I live in. Is the money always used properly? Hell no. But the hope is, if we have elected the right people into office, that the majority of our money WILL go to help create a better environment for our children to grow up in - it WILL put more cops on the streets to keep us safe - it WILL build better schools and pay better teachers - etc Etc ETC.

Recent history has proven to me that giving tax breaks to the rich is a sure fire way to hurt the majority of people in this country. Allowing the richest 2% of people in the USA to incur a slightly higher tax rate will help 98% of people in the country. That's an easy fucking decision to make.

OH boy Aaron....
I am not saying you are a greedy person, I am saying exactly the contrary. You are entitled to what you earn.

I have NEVER complained about the things that rich people own
You said
Why is it more important for the rich to have a third vacation home then it is for an estimated 750,000 people to have a single bed to sleep in?

My point was to show that since you are not a greedy dick, they are not either. They deserve their 3 houses. You deserve your damn movie room.

You are also saying that you know better how they should spend their money. I would challenge you to compare Bill Gates Foundation to United States Government in terms of efficiency and people helped per dollar.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 03:42 PM
You are saying that raising taxes is the same thing as stealing money out of my pocket, and I disagree with that viewpoint.

Well, if you are serious about this, I fear this debate is over.

Here are some definitions of the word stealing:
to appropriate to oneself
to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
to take away by force

If this isn't a synonym for taxation, I don't know what is.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 05:35 PM
Well, if you are serious about this, I fear this debate is over.

Here are some definitions of the word stealing:
to appropriate to oneself
to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
to take away by force

If this isn't a synonym for taxation, I don't know what is.

I guess your right, the conversation IS over - since there have been taxes in the United States since 1791, it would seem that your stance of zero taxes because they are stealing is un-American.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 07:15 PM
Can't you just admit you are wrong and then we can move on.

Taxes are not unAmerican

Excessive taxes are. Fair Tax. Perfectly fine.

Jitterbug
04-29-2010, 08:12 PM
Can't you just admit you are wrong and then we can move on.

Taxes are not unAmerican

Excessive taxes are. Fair Tax. Perfectly fine.

So in the 90's when we had these supposedly UNFAIR taxes and the economy was doing great, were you among all the dickheads that complained and complained and complained and then elected Bush Jr to come in and pass a bunch of tax cuts for the rich - which then led to our economy taking a shit all over again? Seems like everytime we get this country working again, people like your Conservative Tax Haters flush it right back down the toilet.

Choopy
04-29-2010, 11:17 PM
This is another area you are wrong. I have tried to avoid proving you wrong again, but the ones that ruined the country start with Barney Frank, Fanie Maye, Bill Clinton, Bennie Madoff, Tyco, Enron, anyone who voted for the bailouts (Bush included) and countless other self aggrandizing politicians who pass laws that go against basic economic principles to ensure the populous is so dependent on the government tit that they have to continue voting for Democrats in order to survive. They are the ones that that led our country to the shit house. Not tax cuts.
Show me one job lost, market decline, or one penny of lost wealth attibuted to a tax cut. Now show me one person who was not negatively impacted from the scenarios in the first paragraph. You can't do either.

Jitterbug
04-30-2010, 09:47 AM
Oops - Guess you never thought to try and LOOK for other people's opinions - instead you just regurgitate the right wing talking points like a good ditto head should.

Here's a professor of Economics from Wilmette on the subject
http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

Here's another
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

What do you know? Looks like CORPORATE wealth increased tremendously under Bush, but individual wealth plummeted. That's what your tax free world would lead to.

And to say that Tax Cuts don't kill any jobs is such an ignorant statement. Of course they do. Whenever there are tax cuts, there are government programs that are halted to pay for the money put into the Corporate Greed Machine. That means that jobs are cut. Duh.

Choopy
04-30-2010, 05:02 PM
OK. This is why it so frustrating to debate liberals.
This is far from regurgitating right wing talking points. Stop trying to discredit my point of view and address the issues at hand.
The 'economist' you referenced there is tauting taxation as a means of redistribution. That's not economics, that's politics. The article does not outline job cuts from tax cuts. It complains that if you offer tax cuts, you can't create more government jobs. Which further supports my point.
The problem is that that theory is based on how things work now. Things need to change to be fair and work properly.
Many of these points we have discussed are based on other things not mentioned here and thus are not fully representative of the big picture.

Let me break it down for you.

Creating government jobs is not the same as creating private sector jobs. It's akin to welfare.
When you people rail on about tax cuts, it's always the same mantra (read: talking points)
"They're going to cut programs that employee people, they're taking medicine from the elderly, etc."
Why does it have to be this way?
There is too damn much waste and corruption in government spending. And no politician is willing to give up any of their pork. That is the first place all tax cuts should come from.
No government job is producing anything valuable to the economy. Almost all could be done MUCH better by the private sector. See FedEX. This is the second thing that should be done. Government employees are not subject to the same metrics of success the private sector employees are. If you don't perform at work, you lose your job. If you perform exceptionally well, you get promoted. Government employees can not perform and still keep their job (see DMV, Chicago Waste Management). They also do not enjoy the same potential for promotion and success, a staple of the American way. Most people in good government jobs are there because they know someone in a higher position. Privatizing 90% of the government would be a huge boon to this country. You could start a small business to provide some of these services. This would not be only for the big corporations. This would do more for the middle class and poor than any amount of redistribution could ever do. If not privatizing, operating them as small businesses would help. Make each division earn money by charging fair market prices for their services. Make the heads of these divisions accountable for their expenditures instead of having to beg for handouts and spending frivolously to ensure their budgets are not cut the next year.. We could cut taxes there.

Your theory that letting people keep their money (in your words "giving" them money) by not taxing and redistributing it, is pointless in that the same occurs through government redistribution. How many poor people get government contracts? None, it's the Haliburtons, and big Road contractors, Boeing, etc. The rich still get the money. And instead of having to create something innovative, useful, and economically viable that we buy (ie. Microsoft) they just have to corrupt one politician to get the money. And a good portion of them are related to the politician. Why do you think that Pelosi spent something like $50M of her own money to get a $200,000 job? How many of her pork projects did her husbands company benefit from? This is not limited to Democrats. Carly Fiorina is doing the same thing now. Is this because they want to invest their fortune in the future of this great country? Is it for the great benefits package? No, it's because they know there will be a return on their investment.

Now why do the rich still get the money if it's redistributed by the government?

Because they are the ones that can get stuff done. They have productive employees. They answer to stock holders, federal regulation, and media press. There is a significant amount of corruption in this as well which needs to be eliminated.

The federal government should protect us and nothing else. This means through the military and regulation. They should not be so ingrained in our lives that they have to pass legislation on whether a private company can charge for storing bags in the overhead compartment.

With a good handle on corrupt behavior, monopolies, and unfair practices the market (read: us the consumers) will take care of most things. And opportunities exist for us all to succeed. There should be no bailouts. If a company is not sustainable, it needs to fail. With proper oversight (ie not letting foreign companies take over industries that are integral to national security and sustainability) the market will take care of it. It's viable resources will be taken over by others who can create value out of it.

So stop saying that I am regurgitation anything. My opinions are not party specific. Both parties are full of shit and only end up doing things to help themselves.
It's just that I feel that when the government becomes involved, we lose our rights to choose. They implement policies that ensure people will vote for them and not to fix problems and represent us. They also brainwash people like you with these idealistic ideas that sound good on paper but have end up doing more damage than they help (read: the current health care reform). Yes, the idea of giving everyone free health care is a great idea. But if it has a net negative result, should we still do it because it sounds like a good idea?
I go back to you to illustrate this. I know you want everyone to be happy, healthy, and well taken care of. But the fact is that you also want to enjoy the life you've built for yourself. You are not willing to live in squalor to make sure everyone has what they want. I feel the same way. I will give money to charities I endorse to help those less fortunate than I. I want to choose where the money I worked so hard for goes. I don't want it going to Nancy Pelosi's husband because there are corrupt people confiscating my earnings..

So perhaps we should stop talking about how things should be idealistically and start fixing the things that prevent both your idealistic (read: wrong) ideas and my viable solutions from working in the first place.

Jitterbug
05-01-2010, 01:40 PM
Oh Choops, how lovely it is when you go and contradict yourself in a mere two posts. In one, you blame Barney Frank for the economic meltdown, and in the next you declare that what the world really needs is no government regulation of business. Do you know WHY people accuse Frank of contributing to the economic crash? Because he, along with a bunch of other republicans and democrats, did nothing to impose further government REGULATIONS against the companies that were contributing to the housing crisis before the crash!!!! So what you have said in your two posts is that you blame the democrats for not imposing more regulations and then you say that you blame the democrats for wanting to impose regulations!!!! Wow.

Your adoration of American Corporations is laughable. You believe that destroying all government will lead to corporate ethics leading this country into a golden era of prosperity? BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAA. Let's take a tour of a few, just a FEW of your glorified Corporations and what their ethics have led to:

Shell Oil supported and FUNDED a regime in Nigeria that helped to murder and abuse protesters who would not support the destruction of their land for Shell's profits.
htF5XElMyGI

Monsanto has been genetically modifying seeds and then copy writing them with the understanding that these seeds will be mixed in with other seeds throughout the country. That way, they can begin to test random farmer's fields to see if the fields have any evidence of Monsanto's genetically modified seeds. Of course, all fields will due to current seed processing practices and blow over effects. If a farmer's field tests positive for containing a Monsanto seed, they can sue the farmer and take over the farms.
xtJDZmwh5Bc

And of course there's Walmart, which is far too easy to point out the bad stuff. Not the least of which is the way they gleefully push their manufacturers to utilize third world country child labor. Of course, in your world they could just do that here!! How wonderful. Without government regulations we would have sweat shops all throughout the country! That sounds super!! And if you are going to try and say that it would never happen because people wouldn't stand for it... then why the hell are we letting it happen today!?!?!?! Because it is!
QwUbo1pti2w

Your corporate world sucks, Choops. Stop trying to turn America into a nightmare.

Jitterbug
05-01-2010, 01:54 PM
BTW - It should be noted for everyone here to understand that Choops and I are good friends and despite the vitriol we might be spilling in this thread, we're not really mad at each other. I'm just surprised by how wrong he is. lol

Choopy
05-01-2010, 02:18 PM
There is no contradiction. This is a mis-characterization of my post. Are you even reading them?
My posts clearly say that the government should regulate these things. It should do little else.

Barney Frank and all the others culpable for this situation didn't screw up by not regulating enough. It was that they regulated practices that caused the meltdown to ensure they got votes and to enrich themselves and their friends.

This is the core of the problem. This is why we can't trust government with our money.
Franklin Raines and his $90M. (I'd give you a laundry list to supplement this claim, but I'm walking out the door)
You still want to tell me that the government can redistribute better than the private sector?

For the record, a big contributor to this problem was Clinton's (and the Republican Congress) deregulation of the banking industry in '99.

I am for free market practices. But I am not for unfair practices. This is where the government needs to come in. Monopolies, shady market manipulations, consumer protection, etc. Not redistribution of wealth.

You failed to address the fact that government redistribution has the same end result of your claim of capitalism in where the money still ends up in the hands of the rich. This was the whole basis for your argument for redistribution.

djdsf
05-03-2010, 06:54 PM
How in the fuck did I miss this thread I will never know, but I actually did not send mine in (because I did not have a mail box key to my new place for almost 2 months) so after I got it open (late april) I found a stack of papers after papers after papers and 4 forms for the census.

Not sure if is too late to hand it in or not, not sure I want them to take $5K from me but if they do decide to contact my neighbors they are more than welcome because they don't know me and I don't know them.

djdsf
05-25-2010, 06:50 PM
So, hot chick came and took my info for the census I did not submit, invited her in, she took my info and also other stuff, she left happy and with her job done.

muttonchop
05-26-2010, 09:53 AM
Smooth, DJ, very smooth!

Qwaint
05-26-2010, 02:58 PM
First of all I want to apologize for my english,I'm Swedish, so I can't be as eloquent as the rest of you.

We have here a very socialistic society (not enough in my opinion). We have a 33% income tax, and if you make way above average you have 50%.
I'm in the 33% category, and I have no problems what so ever paying that, since I know I help the elderly, the disabled, and for example those who lost their jobs during this crisis. Doctors are pretty much free, schools are completely free.

This all fits very well into my philosophy that no matter how rich your parents are you are entitled to a good education and health care. As good as the people with money.

Socialism is in my mind a faith that the government is a helping body that should know and aim for the greater good for all its population, and work towards a classless society without huge gaps between the wealthy and the less fortunate.

To call a democrat in the States "a socialist" is to me very, very far from the truth.

I obviously agree with Jitterbug in this debate, but that isn't why I wrote this. Just thought I'd add some perspective to the debate.

Just take it as a little breather in between the battles, which is very interesting indeed.