The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2013, 07:50 AM   #26
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,615

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Yet we have die hard Obama supporters and Obama has done what to change any of this? The rich are still getting richer and the rest are seeing prices go up on food and services, not to mention healthcare. I think pretty easy to conclude the vast majority of people in this country live paycheck to paycheck and are in serious debt that they will never get out of and it will get worse with this current admin. More people are on food stamps than ever before. More people have instead of unemployment and looking for any job, have gone the disability way, which we have the most on those books than ever before too. And to top it all we have government agencies, such as the IRS out of control, but things are going fine according to some? Geez, I guess for some, unless there isn't total anarchy and millions flooding the streets of every city, we are to believe everything is fine.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:51 AM   #27
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Louisville, CO
Posts: 8,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
The top one percent control 43% of the wealth.
The next four percent control 29% of the wealth.
That means the other 95% get to split up the 28% of the wealth left over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywis...e-one-percent/

If that doesn't turn you into a progressive, you're either an idiot, or in the top five percent.
So why has Obama massively increased taxes on the middle-class?

Answer: It's the only way to generate anywhere close to the $3.7T that the federal government spends each year.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:58 AM   #28
B-Large
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obushma View Post
God progressives are stupid. This country has steadily gone more and more progressive over the last 60 years. More government has created more loopholes for thieves and robbers, then the opposite effect. Big Government buys its friends and pays them well through backroom deals, appointments, or through lobby...all progressive

I'd say the progressives are the real idiots.
I am starting to be more convinced of this concept. As government has grown, it seems to the middle class opportunity has shrunk. I don't know if there is correlation there, but on the surface it appears Government has become the lever of the influential.

Its ironic, progressives disagree with the idea of a flat tax/ fair tax, but manipulation of the tax code is where wealthy folks carve out goodies for themselves and their friends. A flat tax would hold the wealthy to actually paying that "fair amount", since there would be no carried interest, real estate depreciation, etc..... items that most middle class families can't take advantage of.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:03 AM   #29
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
So why has Obama massively increased taxes on the middle-class?

Answer: It's the only way to generate anywhere close to the $3.7T that the federal government spends each year.
For some reason, you keep thinking that I should defend Obama. I didn't vote for him. That's one thick skull you got there.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:07 AM   #30
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
I am starting to be more convinced of this concept. As government has grown, it seems to the middle class opportunity has shrunk. I don't know if there is correlation there, but on the surface it appears Government has become the lever of the influential.

Its ironic, progressives disagree with the idea of a flat tax/ fair tax, but manipulation of the tax code is where wealthy folks carve out goodies for themselves and their friends. A flat tax would hold the wealthy to actually paying that "fair amount", since there would be no carried interest, real estate depreciation, etc..... items that most middle class families can't take advantage of.
Simple: The rich buy the government they want, including the tax policy.

Stop complicating things. Given the current structure of government-for-sale, it doesn't matter what kind of tax policy you tried to implement. Before any bill you passed could get to the president's desk, the influence peddlers would have their pimps in Washington writing in all new loopholes.

You get rid of the influence FIRST. Then, you write new tax policy.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:14 AM   #31
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Large View Post
isnt that what America is all about, though? Hard work, taking a risk, starting a business will land you into a nice life, and the freedom to puruse that endeavor? Don't we want people to aspire to being successful?

I am not saying some **** isn't unfair, it is, but as I have posted before, is it worth worrying about the people who have always been and always will be super rich; or go for the ride and try to pop into that 5% if not better for yourself and your family?

In my opinion, alot of people end up down and out because they make bad decisions financially... maybe some have bad luck.... but overall it is not that hard to have a good life in America without being super wealthy... it just takes some gumption, hard work and a little financial common sense..
I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that about 50% (and I'm making that percentage up but it's probably in the ballpark) of the population have almost no chance and no hope of improving their outcomes enough to make much of a difference. What do we do about that, and what do we do with these people? You and I have access and privileges, which we largely take for granted, that many people don't. And the foundation for one of the big philosophical arguments seems to be whether or not we "help" these people, and if so how and to what extent? The cycle of poverty is a very real, very profound, and very pervasive reality that there doesn't seem to be a solution for. So yes, what you said is a big part of what America is about. But that's the idealist view because it's leaving out a large part of reality.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:18 AM   #32
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Simple: The rich buy the government they want, including the tax policy.

Stop complicating things. Given the current structure of government-for-sale, it doesn't matter what kind of tax policy you tried to implement. Before any bill you passed could get to the president's desk, the influence peddlers would have their pimps in Washington writing in all new loopholes.

You get rid of the influence FIRST. Then, you write new tax policy.
The government is the influence. If it puts itself up for sale, someone somewhere will somehow find a way to buy it. The only way to stop it is to take away their sale value by taking away their most "flexible" forms of influence.

No more slush funds or public/private "investments." No more subsidies or tax favors. Simple, cut and dried regulations with no possibility for administrative exceptions. If it's that difficult to manage across the board, it's probably better to let the states handle it anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:30 AM   #33
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
The government is the influence. If it puts itself up for sale, someone somewhere will somehow find a way to buy it. The only way to stop it is to take away their sale value by taking away their most "flexible" forms of influence.

No more slush funds or public/private "investments." No more subsidies or tax favors. Simple, cut and dried regulations with no possibility for administrative exceptions. If it's that difficult to manage across the board, it's probably better to let the states handle it anyway.
Really? Why would state government be any better, or any more efficient than a centralized government? If there's one thing American history has proved, it's that states are much more vulnerable to factional influence than the federal government is.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:44 AM   #34
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Really? Why would state government be any better, or any more efficient than a centralized government? If there's one thing American history has proved, it's that states are much more vulnerable to factional influence than the federal government is.
Do you really believe that the largest corporations are the most efficient? No. They view their customers as faceless nameless money machines that need to be manipulated to bring the highest possible return. They'll be as efficient as benefits themselves. But if it pays to be inefficient, they'll do that too (at your expense) Your federal government views you the same way. The more local the government the less likely that is to be the case. And the better they know the needs and requirements of those they govern.

As an example, my current state rep is a Democrat. But he knows his community. He lives with us. He knows the impact of what he does. And I'd trust him far more than any political figure that currently runs anything in Washington.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 06-07-2013 at 08:50 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:01 AM   #35
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I don't disagree with any of this. The problem is that about 50% (and I'm making that percentage up but it's probably in the ballpark) of the population have almost no chance and no hope of improving their outcomes enough to make much of a difference. What do we do about that, and what do we do with these people? You and I have access and privileges, which we largely take for granted, that many people don't. And the foundation for one of the big philosophical arguments seems to be whether or not we "help" these people, and if so how and to what extent? The cycle of poverty is a very real, very profound, and very pervasive reality that there doesn't seem to be a solution for. So yes, what you said is a big part of what America is about. But that's the idealist view because it's leaving out a large part of reality.
Tony, how do you think these people were taken care of before the Big Government Welfare net caught them?

Churches, private individuals, soup kitchens...those things would come back. With the extra money I wouldn't be paying for Ro's Social Security, I'd happily donate that money to a local shelter or church.

This problem wont be fixed until the Boomers die off, this is a problem the Millennials will have to fix.
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:03 AM   #36
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Do you really believe that the largest corporations are the most efficient? No. They view their customers as faceless nameless money machines that need to be manipulated to bring the highest possible return. They'll be as efficient as benefits themselves. But if it pays to be inefficient, they'll do that too (at your expense) Your federal government views you the same way. The more local the government the less likely that is to be the case. And the better they know the needs and requirements of those they govern.

As an example, my current state rep is a Democrat. But he knows his community. He lives with us. He knows the impact of what he does. And I'd trust him far more than any political figure that currently runs anything in Washington.
Setting up a system composed of uber-powerful, global corporations and weak, decentralized governments is a recipe for disaster.

You point out the basic conundrum: Our federal government is also supposed to be composed of representatives who live in our communities and represent our views in Washington. In fact, our representatives in the House manage much smaller, ergo theoretically much more responsive districts than states. And yet, they spend their entire careers in Washington simply raising the money required to stay in office. That can be fixed. It's not even that big of a fix.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:18 AM   #37
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obushma View Post
Tony, how do you think these people were taken care of before the Big Government Welfare net caught them?

Churches, private individuals, soup kitchens...those things would come back. With the extra money I wouldn't be paying for Ro's Social Security, I'd happily donate that money to a local shelter or church.

This problem wont be fixed until the Boomers die off, this is a problem the Millennials will have to fix.
Too bad they can't quit playing video games, jerking off to internet porn and falling for the ideological nightmares of drunken hypocrites like Ayn Rand. Maybe they actually could do something? Of course, that would require actual learning and thinking, rather than just following and parroting. I'm many years away from SS, btw. Besides, you know you really wouldn't spend that extra money at a church. You'd be wasting that money on a new game controller, a six pack of Amp, and a bunch of double cheeseburgers.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-07-2013 at 09:27 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:20 AM   #38
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Setting up a system composed of uber-powerful, global corporations and weak, decentralized governments is a recipe for disaster.
There are some risks there. But I think in a lot of cases we'd find local competition to be pretty nimble if they weren't also forced to fight a massive central government whose interests are so intertwined with the largest market players (contributors)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:31 AM   #39
Smiling Assassin27
Louisville Soul Train
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,114

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Dude has NO clue what 'conservative' has historically meant, that much is obvious. Back to school for this guy.
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:34 AM   #40
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
There are some risks there. But I think in a lot of cases we'd find local competition to be pretty nimble if they weren't also forced to fight a massive central government whose interests are so intertwined with the largest market players (contributors)
It's simple. This morning, I was reading that in Canada, they are bringing up charges against Hershey, Mars and Nestle for collusion in the price fixing of chocolate.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...in-canada?lite

They have a government entity called the Competition Bureau that makes sure the rules of the game are followed. I really doubt we could do the same in the U.S., especially since Citizens United, the dissolution of Glass/Steagle and the SCOTUS creating a new law that money equals speech.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:38 AM   #41
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Too bad they can't quit playing video games, jerking off to internet porn and falling for the ideological nightmares of drunken hypocrites like Ayn Rand. Maybe they actually could do something? Of course, that would require actual learning and thinking, rather than just following and parroting. I'm many years away from SS, btw. Besides, you know you really wouldn't spend that extra money at a church. You'd be wasting that money on a new game controller, a six pack of Amp, and a bunch of double cheeseburgers.
That sounds more like the Boomers, what you just described there. The Millennials started the two biggest political movements this country has seen. You're a funny guy, all on Obama's dick for his first 4, now it's..."I never liked Obama"
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:46 AM   #42
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obushma View Post
That sounds more like the Boomers, what you just described there. The Millennials started the two biggest political movements this country has seen. You're a funny guy, all on Obama's dick for his first 4, now it's..."I never liked Obama"
I admit, I voted for Obama the first time around. Of course, the choice offered by you brilliant Right Wingers was McCain and Palin. Had McCain won, America would now look like Greece and we'd have boots on the ground in Syria, not to mention, probably Egypt and Libya as well. And Palin backing him up?

That was a vote for the preservation of the country.

Oh, and what two movements are you talking about?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:50 AM   #43
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27 View Post
Dude has NO clue what 'conservative' has historically meant, that much is obvious. Back to school for this guy.
You think it's this guy who has no clue? Facepalm. Headdesk.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:55 AM   #44
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I admit, I voted for Obama the first time around. Of course, the choice offered by you brilliant Right Wingers was McCain and Palin. Had McCain won, America would now look like Greece and we'd have boots on the ground in Syria, not to mention, probably Egypt and Libya as well. And Palin backing him up?
Thats funny, I voted in 08 and it wasn't for either McCain or Obama, what was your problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
That was a vote for the preservation of the country.

Oh, and what two movements are you talking about?
OWS and the Tea Party

BTW, what the **** have the Boomers EVER done politically? Besides sit on their hands and let the politicians handle politics.
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:00 AM   #45
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
It's simple. This morning, I was reading that in Canada, they are bringing up charges against Hershey, Mars and Nestle for collusion in the price fixing of chocolate.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...in-canada?lite

They have a government entity called the Competition Bureau that makes sure the rules of the game are followed. I really doubt we could do the same in the U.S., especially since Citizens United, the dissolution of Glass/Steagle and the SCOTUS creating a new law that money equals speech.
I hear ya, but nobody's saying there's no federal role. Just that many functions it currently takes on (or monopolizes ) would be much better suited to State and local governments.

The answer certainly isn't to build a government so large and unwieldy that it becomes no more accountable than those large companies colluding over a market.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:33 AM   #46
Kid A
Ring of Famer
 
Kid A's Avatar
 
I don't need love. I just need wins

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,254

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Rahim Moore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27 View Post
Dude has NO clue what 'conservative' has historically meant, that much is obvious. Back to school for this guy.
Barro (the guy that wrote the article) is one of my favorite reads. He's correct in saying that he is not a conservative, but he does a great job in his columns at pushing back on left and right / generally eschewing party lines for sanity.

But, he does know what "conservative" means, historically or currently. He's still a registered Republican. He worked on Romney's 2002 gubernatorial campaign. He interned for Grover Norquist. He worked at the Manhattan Institute and Koch Tax Foundation. He wrote for the National Review. His father is Robert Barro, one of the foremost conservative economists in the world.

So, yeah, he does understand basically any definition of conservative floating around. He's just saying he has seen it and rejects it, as it's a terribly flawed approach to the economic realities and problems we face.
Kid A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:38 AM   #47
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,627
Default

Great post, Kid A. And a thorough dismantling of Smiling Assassin. Hopefully a lesson learned for him, but hope does not spring eternal in this case...
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:51 AM   #48
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obushma View Post
Thats funny, I voted in 08 and it wasn't for either McCain or Obama, what was your problem?



OWS and the Tea Party

BTW, what the **** have the Boomers EVER done politically? Besides sit on their hands and let the politicians handle politics.
Yeah. I'm sure you align with the OWS movement.

You're right about the Boomers. They elected Nixon and Reagan. Twice. Bunch of **** ups.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 11:57 AM   #49
Obushma
Ring of Famer
 
Obushma's Avatar
 
Bring your lunch pail

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Yeah. I'm sure you align with the OWS movement.

You're right about the Boomers. They elected Nixon and Reagan. Twice. Bunch of **** ups.
I never said I agreed w/ OWS, just that it was started by my generation, which was the point in our conversation.
Obushma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 02:29 PM   #50
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Frankly, I think this whole generational labels thing is bull****. There's no such thing as a monolithic generation. It's just a huge mix of people all following their own individual destinies in a particular time slot, purely by coincidence. The whole thing, like hippies, yippies, yuppies, Gen XYZ, Millennials, etc. is made up by media organs so they can use it as a tool to deliver their little nuggets of pablum to the masses. Yeah, such and such a generation cares about so and so. Bull****. I find it hilarious that idiots lap that **** up. Yeah, the boomers were the laid back, hippie generation. That's why they elected Nixon and Reagan twice.

The had the best music, though. But their clothes sucked.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Denver Broncos