Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 17:16:03 GMT -5
- never mind -
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 5, 2014 17:31:07 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 6, 2014 5:41:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 12:51:05 GMT -5
So you're saying that the only way the rich become rich is by stealing from the poor? You made a lot of money Zak. Did you do it by stealing from the poor? Or did you work for it? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 13:22:11 GMT -5
That's a value judgment, Bob, about what is the "right thing". You wouldn't disagree with that, would you?
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 6, 2014 17:11:41 GMT -5
That's a value judgment, Bob, about what is the "right thing". You wouldn't disagree with that, would you? Well said lily, or should I say well asked. It is a value judgment, as when I see the name David Koch my instinct is to think of all the right wing backwards campaigns he & his brother finance. Then, my instinct, or value judgment, is to barf.
|
|
|
Post by teri on Feb 6, 2014 17:18:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 6, 2014 18:08:40 GMT -5
Neither, Bob. I made it by stealing from the rich.
(Lighten up, Bob. It's just a cartoon : ))
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 21:01:02 GMT -5
That's a value judgment, Bob, about what is the "right thing". You wouldn't disagree with that, would you? Lily, I said that because you said that libertarians just "take care of their own." Libertarians do more than take care of their own. But libertarians do it because they want to, not because they are forced to. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 21:06:19 GMT -5
That's a value judgment, Bob, about what is the "right thing". You wouldn't disagree with that, would you? Lily, I said that because you said that libertarians just "take care of their own." Libertarians do more than take care of their own. But libertarians do it because they want to, not because they are forced to. Bob Oh, right. The monument to the Koch Brothers. How could I have missed that.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 21:09:34 GMT -5
It is a value judgment, as when I see the name David Koch my instinct is to think of all the right wing backwards campaigns he & his brother finance. Then, my instinct, or value judgment, is to barf. Do you mean right wing backwards campaigns like these? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 21:16:31 GMT -5
Koch does that because he has money, right? And isn't that how rich folks end up not having too pay taxes? They kill two birds with one stone. They get to be heroes and also get a tax break, too. So, from your examples, Libertarians are rich folk. You are using a red herring, Bob. Unless you really believe that's what all Libertarians do. Of course, you do believe we are all stupid.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 21:18:22 GMT -5
like raybar sez....super wealth gives some the power to rig the system. If we had a limited government, there would be no system to rig. The middle class is eroding because of stupid actions on the part of the government. Every year, the government takes more and more money from the middle class so that politicians can pay back the power groups that backed them in the elections. We're reaching the end of the road here. Soon there will be no money left for the politicians to steal. Yes. It is stupid, wasteful, and corrupt government policies that did this. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 21:28:32 GMT -5
Koch does that because he has money, right? And isn't that how rich folks end up not having too pay taxes? They kill two birds with one stone. They get to be heroes and also get a tax break, too. So, from your examples, Libertarians are rich folk. You are using a red herring, Bob. Unless you really believe that's what all Libertarians do. Of course, you do believe we are all stupid. What's the top tax bracket, Lily? in 2013, it was 39.6%. So over 60% of all the rest of Koch's contributions are all his. That's hundreds of millions of dollars. I suppose you feel the same way about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? Perhaps you would feel better if they didn't give anything away at all? How about you Lily? When you give something away or do something nice for someone, doesn't that make you feel good? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 21:29:58 GMT -5
And you asked what is the harm of a few people being flithy rich? You just illustrated it.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 6, 2014 23:14:51 GMT -5
And you asked what is the harm of a few people being flithy rich? You just illustrated it. So you are saying that just being filthy rich is itself a crime, right? And I didn't illustrate it at all. What I did illustrate is how politicians cause harm. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2014 23:12:19 GMT -5
The middle class is eroding because of stupid actions on the part of the government. Every year, the government takes more and more money from the middle class so that politicians can pay back the power groups that backed them in the elections. Powergroups such as... rich people and large corporations. Which according to you are the pillars of the economy and shouldn't be shackled by evil things such as taxes or regulations.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 9, 2014 13:25:31 GMT -5
The middle class is eroding because of stupid actions on the part of the government. Every year, the government takes more and more money from the middle class so that politicians can pay back the power groups that backed them in the elections. Powergroups such as... rich people and large corporations. Which according to you are the pillars of the economy and shouldn't be shackled by evil things such as taxes or regulations. Strawman. I never said that rich people and large corporations are pillars of the economy. What I did say is that power groups will use the government as a weapon. The best way to deal with that problem is to make the weapon less powerful. Do you really think the government is some sort of impartial entity that "regulates" power groups? Behind each and every government action is...another power group. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 4:01:52 GMT -5
I never said that rich people and large corporations are pillars of the economy. What I did say is that power groups will use the government as a weapon. And those weapons are social welfare, health insurance, and public infrastructure? Are you serious? Behind each and every government action is...another power group. Bob Which is of course why any libertarian coming into power will at once divest himself from it like the selfless philosopher king he is.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 12, 2014 17:35:29 GMT -5
I never said that rich people and large corporations are pillars of the economy. What I did say is that power groups will use the government as a weapon. And those weapons are social welfare, health insurance, and public infrastructure? Are you serious? Strawman. The weapons are mismanaged social welfare (e.g. welfare programs arranged to keep people on the dole by reducing their "benefits" if they work even at a part-time job) and mismanaged health insurance, whose expenses are increasing so fast as to cause national bankruptcy. Infrastructure is negligible compared to these two, but it can also be enormously wasteful (e.g. the airport in Johnstown PA which was a pork project of a powerful local congressman. The few flights a day that use it have to be subsidized by the federal government). Behind each and every government action is...another power group. Bob Which is of course why any libertarian coming into power will at once divest himself from it like the selfless philosopher king he is. [/quote]Philosopher kings are not necessary. Libertarians are pledged to cut the size and scope of the government. It's hard to give out favors, government contracts, and government money while you are doing that. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2014 6:41:32 GMT -5
And those weapons are social welfare, health insurance, and public infrastructure? Are you serious? Strawman. The weapons are mismanaged social welfare (e.g. welfare programs arranged to keep people on the dole by reducing their "benefits" if they work even at a part-time job) and mismanaged health insurance, whose expenses are increasing so fast as to cause national bankruptcy. Infrastructure is negligible compared to these two, but it can also be enormously wasteful (e.g. the airport in Johnstown PA which was a pork project of a powerful local congressman. The few flights a day that use it have to be subsidized by the federal government). So just to get this straight: You do not consider militaries, secret services, police forces, or any other kind of armed organisation a threat to liberty. But social benefits for unemployed and/or poor people are inherently dangerous. You honestly believe that a libertarian government has no favors, government contracts, or government money to hand out to its cronies? Bob, I think I got a bridge to sell you!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 13, 2014 14:00:39 GMT -5
Strawman. The weapons are mismanaged social welfare (e.g. welfare programs arranged to keep people on the dole by reducing their "benefits" if they work even at a part-time job) and mismanaged health insurance, whose expenses are increasing so fast as to cause national bankruptcy. Infrastructure is negligible compared to these two, but it can also be enormously wasteful (e.g. the airport in Johnstown PA which was a pork project of a powerful local congressman. The few flights a day that use it have to be subsidized by the federal government). So just to get this straight: You do not consider militaries, secret services, police forces, or any other kind of armed organisation a threat to liberty. But social benefits for unemployed and/or poor people are inherently dangerous. Oh no. Armed forces can easily be a threat to liberty. Jefferson was right when he said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Social "benefits" provided by the government are a threat because they keep growing and will produce eventual bankruptcy. In addition, much of the money goes into funding a bureaucracy that has an interest in seeing that there will always be an adequate supply of needy, dependent people. There was once a French bureaucracy that was supposed to eliminate wolves. The government hunters killed old wolves and let the young ones live. The public nicknamed that bureaucracy "the society for the preservation of wolves." Okay. Please give me a list of all these "favors, government contracts, or government money" that a libertarian government would be handing out. Bob
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 13, 2014 17:54:40 GMT -5
"Okay. Please give me a list of all these "favors, government contracts, or government money" that a libertarian government would be handing out."
Speculation. Ask Rand Paul, or Paul Ryan, if they don't already play the game. Not that they'd tell you, of course.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 13, 2014 20:23:07 GMT -5
"Okay. Please give me a list of all these "favors, government contracts, or government money" that a libertarian government would be handing out." Speculation. Ask Rand Paul, or Paul Ryan, if they don't already play the game. Not that they'd tell you, of course. Paul Ryan is most definitely NOT a libertarian. Did you see his proposed budget during the 2012 campaign? The Republican Party is the Hypocrite party. The talk about the free market but in practice they couldn't care less. The government keeps growing no matter which of these two parties is in power. As for Rand Paul, he is also a Republican, isn't he? Bob
|
|
|
Post by TERI on Feb 13, 2014 21:54:19 GMT -5
lauding the koch bros as libertarians who give back??? they work more for me as an example of the "favors, government contracts, or government money" you seem to think libertarians incapable of....
"The House of Representatives voted to slash the EPA budget by 27 percent, one of the biggest cuts since President Richard Nixon and the Congress created the agency in 1970. What is less known is that more than 100 House members - all Republicans, many tea party members - signed a little-known "pledge" (similar to the Grover Norquist no tax increase pledge) backed by the Koch brothers promising to not spend any federal money to fight climate change without an equal amount of tax cuts. Most of the pledge signers received campaign contributions from Charles or David Koch or Koch Industries. The Workshop has tracked the signing of the pledge by 411 current state and federal politicians nationwide (all Republicans except four Democrats and two Independents at the state level). Among them are such prominent state officials as Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, the Republican nominee for governor in Virginia. The first person to sign the Koch-backed pledge was Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, where Koch Industries is headquartered. Of the 85 conservative Republicans first elected to the House of Representatives in 2010, 76 signed the pledge and, of those, 57 received money from Koch Industries' political action committee. The members of Congress who signed the pledge have also introduced several bills aimed at limiting EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and limiting regulation of the nation's biggest polluters."
Read more: Koch Brothers Climate Change - The Koch Brothers Aren't Going Anywhere - Esquire Follow us: @esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook Visit us at Esquire.com
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 13, 2014 23:39:04 GMT -5
lauding the koch bros as libertarians who give back??? they work more for me as an example of the "favors, government contracts, or government money" you seem to think libertarians incapable of.... I said a Libertarian government would be less likely to give out favors because they would reduce the scope of government and that automatically reduces the number of areas where favors could be given out. The Libertarian Party is dead set against all corporate welfare. Teri, what "favors" are being given out here? All they did is sign a pledge to hold off on a particular government program until taxes are cut. What government contracts were involved? None. As for receiving money from political actions committees, people are going to give money to politicians who back programs they like. As long as no government money or contracts are involved, what's the problem? Don't left-wing people give money to candidates they like? Bob
|
|
|
Post by teri on Feb 14, 2014 2:21:54 GMT -5
the koch's little wisconsin boy-toy, scott walker is at the center of a major probe into campaign finance violations during the state’s 2011 and 2012 recall elections. criminal and civil charges.
some of the groups being investigated and having subpoenas and search warrants served as part of the new investigation:
Americans for Prosperity—Wisconsin – Charles and David Koch funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization that’s “social welfare” mission protects its tax-exempt status, which it blatently violated with bus tours and other astroturf activities during Recall season
League of American Voters – a Washington DC-based group funded by the Charles R. Lambe Foundation with original funding from Charles and David Koch with leadership tied to Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council
Republican Governors Association – linked to and largely funded by David Koch, formed a political action committee “Right Direction Wisconsin”
Republican Party of Wisconsin – with offices shared by Koch-funded John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, links are also tied to Americans for Prosperity
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 9:17:29 GMT -5
So just to get this straight: You do not consider militaries, secret services, police forces, or any other kind of armed organisation a threat to liberty. But social benefits for unemployed and/or poor people are inherently dangerous. Oh no. Armed forces can easily be a threat to liberty. Jefferson was right when he said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Social "benefits" provided by the government are a threat because they keep growing and will produce eventual bankruptcy. So you consider "eventual bankrupcy" (which you assume based on no evidence) as more of a threat than armed governmental organisations that can take away liberties and have historically done just that? Just off the top of my head... [*] privatization of formerly publicly-run operations: Infrastructure, sewage, transportation, science, education, healthcare, pension and unemployment funds, prisons, security, parks, wildlife preserves... [*] handing out exclusive contracts to the organisations that have just been privatized, e.g. exclusive "policing" contracts to private security firms [*] Control over regulative agencies [*] Maintenance/construction/purchase of public buildings [*] Regulatory policies or laws that benefit specific lobby groups [*] Tax breaks and loopholes [*] slave labor from government-run incarceration facilities
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 14, 2014 20:16:42 GMT -5
Oh no. Armed forces can easily be a threat to liberty. Jefferson was right when he said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance. Social "benefits" provided by the government are a threat because they keep growing and will produce eventual bankruptcy. So you consider "eventual bankrupcy" (which you assume based on no evidence) as more of a threat than armed governmental organisations that can take away liberties and have historically done just that? Yes. In fact the bankruptcy is starting already. Detroit and Stockton California are two of the largest cities that declared bankruptcy recently. More are on the way. The Federal debt is over $16 trillion and growing. As for the armed forces, try having a country without police and an army. Historically, there have been plenty of cases of that too. It's called anarchy. (1) Privatization of formerly publicly run operations is a one time deal and could easily be handled in a fair, open, and non-corrupt manner with open auctions. And even if everything goes wrong and corruption rears its ugly head, remember, it is just a one time deal. Compare that to the present situation where new corruption takes place every year. Education can easily be taken care of by private schools the same way that food is taken care of through private farms and supermarkets. Were the collectivized farms in the Soviet Union more efficient than private farms in the USA? The Soviet Union imported massive amounts of food from America during the last decades of the Cold War. Most pension funds here in the USA are already private. So far, no massive disaster has happened. There are already private prisons too. As for the national parks, that is another case of massive waste. One national park here spent over $1 million to build an outhouse. Control over regulative agencies? What agencies are these in a Libertarian society? However, there are plenty of corrupt agencies right now with big government. These agencies are filled with people who used to work in the industries that are being "regulated." "Regulatory policies or laws that benefit specific lobby groups? That's what we have now. What policies and laws could you possibly be talking about in a Libertarian society? "Tax breaks and loopholes?" Again, that is what we have now. With a Libertarian government, taxes would be massively reduced and many taxes would be eliminated. If a tax is eliminated, so are all the loopholes. "Slave labor from government-run incarceration facilities?" But prisons would be private, not government run, remember? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 12:14:17 GMT -5
Just to clarify Bob, I am not talking about ideal Libertarian utopias that may or may not exist in some far flung future, I am talking about a modern government controlled by self-proclaimed Libertarians.
|
|