LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.

The only difference is, there is legitimate legal recourse when this happens in the private sector. When your government is immorally confiscating wealth/property from you, all you can do is turn around and grab the ankles.

[Guinness]

There's no consideration for the ill affects of government action. If government commits an immoral act (let's even allow that the aim legitimately is to right some perceived wrong), why is there no consideration for that immorality? The answer is that you perceive the ends to justify the means. But this is a completely arbitrary standard.

That's not true at all. Government screws up all the time but leaving certain things in the hands of a private business can lead to immorality, of course a different immorality then government but still immorality. Arguing with a moral absolutist getting old. The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.

Well then, by all means, stop. I'm sure it gets frustrating for you...

What differentiates immoral acts committed by government from those committed by private entities is that only government has the socially-sanctioned use of coercive and physical force.

[thehockeyguru]

There's no consideration for the ill affects of government action. If government commits an immoral act (let's even allow that the aim legitimately is to right some perceived wrong), why is there no consideration for that immorality? The answer is that you perceive the ends to justify the means. But this is a completely arbitrary standard.

That's not true at all. Government screws up all the time but leaving certain things in the hands of a private business can lead to immorality, of course a different immorality then government but still immorality. Arguing with a moral absolutist getting old. The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.

What are you arguing for bigger government? More government control?

[doublem]

Really, even when they are taking money from you? The more money they have the less you have, you don't have a problem with that? Not to mention how all those rich people you admire screwed the entire world up by making beats on others peoples money.

Sigh............................no one is taking money from me. If you mean the money that I pay corporations for the goods and services they provide, then yes, I guess those wascally rich folk are taking money away from me. "The more money they have, the less money you have".....wow..... . This statement is ridiculously flawed. I like the argument that just because someone becomes even more successful, this somehow takes away from my own personal wealth. Through hard work, my income has steadily rose in the three years since I graduated college. Is that because the wealthy have less money now?

Seriously, are you joking right? The inequalities in this country has grown by a huge number since the 1960s, the top 1% now has more money then they did before. The working wages have decreased, health care has increased, tax breaks on the rich. The workers in this country has been screwed over for so long that they believe all this crap they are told.

[doublem]

There's no consideration for the ill affects of government action. If government commits an immoral act (let's even allow that the aim legitimately is to right some perceived wrong), why is there no consideration for that immorality? The answer is that you perceive the ends to justify the means. But this is a completely arbitrary standard.

That's not true at all. Government screws up all the time but leaving certain things in the hands of a private business can lead to immorality, of course a different immorality then government but still immorality. Arguing with a moral absolutist getting old. The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.

What are you arguing for bigger government? More government control?

Ummm yea.

[doublem]

The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.

The only difference is, there is legitimate legal recourse when this happens in the private sector. When your government is immorally confiscating wealth/property from you, all you can do is turn around and grab the ankles.

Really where has all that been?

[thehockeyguru]

Ummm yea.

For every one thing the government does right you can point to 5 things it messed up.

[shafnutz05]

Seriously, are you joking right? The inequalities in this country has grown by a huge number since the 1960s, the top 1% now has more money then they did before. The working wages have decreased, health care has increased, tax breaks on the rich. The workers in this country has been screwed over for so long that they believe all this crap they are told.

OK, I know this is going to be labeled another talking point, but here goes....

This is from a study by The Tax Foundation in October of 2007:

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

The "upper half" of income-earners in the United States already pay almost 97% of all of the income tax monies collected by the federal government. How much more would you like to take? 100%? Should the top 1% be taxed at a 90% rate, because they can still live comfortably with the remaining 10%? How far does this go?

[doublem]

There's no consideration for the ill affects of government action. If government commits an immoral act (let's even allow that the aim legitimately is to right some perceived wrong), why is there no consideration for that immorality? The answer is that you perceive the ends to justify the means. But this is a completely arbitrary standard.

That's not true at all. Government screws up all the time but leaving certain things in the hands of a private business can lead to immorality, of course a different immorality then government but still immorality. Arguing with a moral absolutist getting old. The private tyranny in this country commits just as many immoral acts as the government.

Well then, by all means, stop. I'm sure it gets frustrating for you...

What differentiates immoral acts committed by government from those committed by private entities is that only government has the socially-sanctioned use of coercive and physical force.

Yes, that's true but when the private forces buy off the government, well look what happens. And why does someone that always rides in on the high horse of moralality never call out these immoral actions by private enterprise. Like this for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thehockeyguru]

The "upper half" of income-earners in the United States already pay almost 97% of all of the income tax monies collected by the federal government. How much more would you like to take? 100%? Should the top 1% be taxed at a 90% rate, because they can still live comfortably with the remaining 10%? How far does this go?

Its easier to take from someone who has then to make someone who is lazy work. Plus catering to the top 1% to 5% doesnt give you much of a base if you are a politician.

[Troy Loney]

Seriously, are you joking right? The inequalities in this country has grown by a huge number since the 1960s, the top 1% now has more money then they did before. The working wages have decreased, health care has increased, tax breaks on the rich. The workers in this country has been screwed over for so long that they believe all this crap they are told.

OK, I know this is going to be labeled another talking point, but here goes....

This is from a study by The Tax Foundation in October of 2007:

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

The "upper half" of income-earners in the United States already pay almost 97% of all of the income tax monies collected by the federal government. How much more would you like to take? 100%? Should the top 1% be taxed at a 90% rate, because they can still live comfortably with the remaining 10%? How far does this go?

What is this supposed to reveal...the existence of a marginal tax rate?

[shafnutz05]

Yes, that's true but when the private forces buy off the government, well look what happens. And why does someone that always rides in on the high horse of moralality never call out these immoral actions by private enterprise. Like this for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought this was a shameful move by Google as well...of course, let's not forget that Google's ownership is mostly made up of left-wingers like Eric Schmidt and Larry Page.

[shafnutz05]

What is this supposed to reveal...the existence of a marginal tax rate?

Actually...yes. Merely pointing out that the vast majority of the tax revenue does come from the top half of income-earners in this country, and much of this money goes towards social programs that provide for the bottom half. We are already paying a ton of money for these programs....how much more do we need to spend?

[doublem]

Seriously, are you joking right? The inequalities in this country has grown by a huge number since the 1960s, the top 1% now has more money then they did before. The working wages have decreased, health care has increased, tax breaks on the rich. The workers in this country has been screwed over for so long that they believe all this crap they are told.

OK, I know this is going to be labeled another talking point, but here goes....

This is from a study by The Tax Foundation in October of 2007:

The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

The "upper half" of income-earners in the United States already pay almost 97% of all of the income tax monies collected by the federal government. How much more would you like to take? 100%? Should the top 1% be taxed at a 90% rate, because they can still live comfortably with the remaining 10%? How far does this go?

It was at 90 percent at one time and this country had a thriving middle class. The rich still had money and created jobs and the rest of us had more money, 90% is a little high but I wouldn't worry about it.

[Guinness]

90% is a little high but I wouldn't worry about it.

[doublem]

Yes, that's true but when the private forces buy off the government, well look what happens. And why does someone that always rides in on the high horse of moralality never call out these immoral actions by private enterprise. Like this for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought this was a shameful move by Google as well...of course, let's not forget that Google's ownership is mostly made up of left-wingers like Eric Schmidt and Larry Page.

I don't know who they are but phone companies did the same thing in this country when they turned over phone records to the government for the patriot act.

[Guinness]

Merely pointing out that the vast majority of the tax revenue does come from the top half of income-earners in this country

They don't need it. And if they do, they don't deserve it. According to whom? Well, "them", I guess...

[shafnutz05]

90% is a little high but I wouldn't worry about it.

And this goes back to the classic, modern liberal government redistribution policy. If it's not my money, who cares?!

[shafnutz05]

I bought Modern Warfare 2 for $60.....a game that I did not need. Should the government have intervened, made me aware that I did not really need such a luxury item, and confiscated that $60 and gave it someone needy and deserving instead for the food they need to survive? I know that's a stretch from what we are arguing, but is it? I can see there being a general disapproval of any type of luxury items at some point down the road, with people arguing that humans should ONLY be entitled to the food, shelter, clothing, and water they need to survive. Everything else is contributed to the "greater good". Just to look at the argument from another angle.

[doublem]

The "upper half" of income-earners in the United States already pay almost 97% of all of the income tax monies collected by the federal government. How much more would you like to take? 100%? Should the top 1% be taxed at a 90% rate, because they can still live comfortably with the remaining 10%? How far does this go?

Its easier to take from someone who has then to make someone who is lazy work. Plus catering to the top 1% to 5% doesnt give you much of a base if you are a politician.

Where does all this lobbying money come from? Poor people. Come on. I guess Americans are lazy when they out work all but like 5 countries in the world in terms of hours. More spirited defense of the uber rich.

[doublem]

90% is a little high but I wouldn't worry about it.

And this goes back to the classic, modern liberal government redistribution policy. If it's not my money, who cares?!

It would be nice to see that by someone.

[shafnutz05]

I'm sorry, but our government has been reduced to a thugocracy. There's simply no other way to put it. I don't trust these goons to be trustworthy about ANYTHING, especially the money they are taking away from me.

"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." That's what President Barack Obama said to Rep. Peter DeFazio in a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, according to the Associated Press.

A few weeks ago, Mr. DeFazio voted against the administration's stimulus bill. The comment from Mr. Obama was a presidential rebuke and part of a new, hard-nosed push by the White House to pressure Congress to adopt the president's budget. He has mobilized outside groups and enlisted forces still in place from the Obama campaign.

Senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett and her chief of staff, Michael Strautmanis, are in regular contact with MoveOn.Org, Americans United for Change and other liberal interest groups. Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina has collaborated with Americans United for Change on strategy and even ad copy. Ms. Jarrett invited leaders of the liberal interest groups to a White House social event with the president and first lady to kick off the lobbying campaign.

Its targets were initially Republicans, as team Obama ran ads depicting the GOP as the "party of no." But now the fire is being trained on Democrats worried about runaway spending.

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama's plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats.

[Guinness]

[youtube][/youtube]

Thought I'd just post this again. Seemed like a good opportunity to illustrate the stark contrast...

Edit to add: Again this is a sort of summary of the rational, logical underpinnings of a libertarian viewpoint.

[thehockeyguru]

The "upper half" of income-earners in the United States already pay almost 97% of all of the income tax monies collected by the federal government. How much more would you like to take? 100%? Should the top 1% be taxed at a 90% rate, because they can still live comfortably with the remaining 10%? How far does this go?

Its easier to take from someone who has then to make someone who is lazy work. Plus catering to the top 1% to 5% doesnt give you much of a base if you are a politician.

Where does all this lobbying money come from? Poor people. Come on. I guess Americans are lazy when they out work all but like 5 countries in the world in terms of hours. More spirited defense of the uber rich.

What lobbying money are you referring to? And yes the Americans that do work need to work extra hard to pay for all the governments hand-outs.

[Guinness]

Yes, that's true but when the private forces buy off the government, well look what happens. And why does someone that always rides in on the high horse of moralality never call out these immoral actions by private enterprise. Like this for example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You don't seem to realize that this line of argument supports my position. Do you think that the government agencies involved were somehow duped into being bought off, or manipulated? That some poor sucker-pollyanna in government with nothing but the best of intentions in his heart never saw these big mean corporations coming? Corporations and powerful people go to government explicitly to take advantage of the legitimate coercive and physical force it provides. Your answer to this, then, is MORE government?!