The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

Getting off fossil fuels is all well and good, but not if it's just used as an excuse to pocket some extra tax dollars and introduce even more tyranny to our lives.

Tyranny....in what shape or form?

In the shape of more taxation and regulation of human interaction. The ultimate goal being to run the earth like a global corporation, using constant fear as a catalyst.

You fear that government will become like a corporation, rather than fearing corporations that are already like corporations (because that's what they are) and which operate an asinine economic system in which everyone works their asses off for the exorbitant benefit of the few?  It's all just feudalism, dressed up pretty.

[polluxlm]

Getting off fossil fuels is all well and good, but not if it's just used as an excuse to pocket some extra tax dollars and introduce even more tyranny to our lives.

Tyranny....in what shape or form?

In the shape of more taxation and regulation of human interaction. The ultimate goal being to run the earth like a global corporation, using constant fear as a catalyst.

You fear that government will become like a corporation, rather than fearing corporations that are already like corporations (because that's what they are) and which operate an asinine economic system in which everyone works their asses off for the exorbitant benefit of the few?  It's all just feudalism, dressed up pretty.

That's an oversimplification of the issue.

I'm well aware of the nature of the corporation. What you appear to miss out on is it's ability to consistently influence your government. If you got a problem with the economic system why don't you go out and protest the FED?

[freedom78]

Getting off fossil fuels is all well and good, but not if it's just used as an excuse to pocket some extra tax dollars and introduce even more tyranny to our lives.

Tyranny....in what shape or form?

In the shape of more taxation and regulation of human interaction. The ultimate goal being to run the earth like a global corporation, using constant fear as a catalyst.

You fear that government will become like a corporation, rather than fearing corporations that are already like corporations (because that's what they are) and which operate an asinine economic system in which everyone works their asses off for the exorbitant benefit of the few?  It's all just feudalism, dressed up pretty.

That's an oversimplification of the issue.

I'm well aware of the nature of the corporation. What you appear to miss out on is it's ability to consistently influence your government. If you got a problem with the economic system why don't you go out and protest the FED?

I'm not at all missing out on that.  I think I just see it differently than you.  You (seem...don't want to put words in mouths) view government as the problem and source of tyranny.  I view government as reacting to those with real power and influence, meaning that if the people in general had the power, rather than the select few, then government would properly react to them, rather than to corporatism and wealth.  Government is just a tool; it's the question of who controls/influences it that I think matters.  And it's no surprise that it protects those with wealth, since that's what it was designed to do (at least in the US). 

[pilferk]

Q:  If a man has no job and, thus, no income, and you cut his income taxes, how much does he save so that he has more to spend?

A: ZE-FUCKING-RO

A small business who receives a tax cut can use the savings to hire  people to increase his production, thus giving this man a job.

That's the theory.

The problem is: It hasn't worked so far.  At least not to the extent it needs to to stimulate economic recovery.  The scale (of the businesses, themselves...not of the tax cutss) just isn't large enough.  And the businesses where it IS large enough aren't hiring...they're simply pocketing the money. At least according to the current tax cuts and unemployment.

And if the dems agreed, and made the tax cut ATTACHED to actually creating a job...the Repubs would go up in arms about the restriction....saying the Dems were trying to be socialists and tell small business HOW to spend their money.

[freedom78]

Q:  If a man has no job and, thus, no income, and you cut his income taxes, how much does he save so that he has more to spend?

A: ZE-FUCKING-RO

A small business who receives a tax cut can use the savings to hire  people to increase his production, thus giving this man a job.

That's the theory.

The problem is: It hasn't worked so far.  At least not to the extent it needs to to stimulate economic recovery.  The scale just isn't large enough.  And the businesses where it IS large enough aren't hiring...they're simply pocketing the money. At least according to the current tax cuts and unemployment.

And if the dems agreed, and made the tax cut ATTACHED to actually creating a job...the Repubs would go up in arms about the restriction....saying the Dems were trying to be socialists and tell small business HOW to spend their money.

Nevermind that they want the same things attached to welfare, etc., of course.

[SLCPUNK]

I'm well aware of the nature of the corporation. What you appear to miss out on is it's ability to consistently influence your government. If you got a problem with the economic system why don't you go out and protest the FED?

More Fed conspiracy theory non-sense....

[polluxlm]

Getting off fossil fuels is all well and good, but not if it's just used as an excuse to pocket some extra tax dollars and introduce even more tyranny to our lives.

Tyranny....in what shape or form?

In the shape of more taxation and regulation of human interaction. The ultimate goal being to run the earth like a global corporation, using constant fear as a catalyst.

You fear that government will become like a corporation, rather than fearing corporations that are already like corporations (because that's what they are) and which operate an asinine economic system in which everyone works their asses off for the exorbitant benefit of the few?  It's all just feudalism, dressed up pretty.

That's an oversimplification of the issue.

I'm well aware of the nature of the corporation. What you appear to miss out on is it's ability to consistently influence your government. If you got a problem with the economic system why don't you go out and protest the FED?

I'm not at all missing out on that.  I think I just see it differently than you.  You (seem...don't want to put words in mouths) view government as the problem and source of tyranny.  I view government as reacting to those with real power and influence, meaning that if the people in general had the power, rather than the select few, then government would properly react to them, rather than to corporatism and wealth.  Government is just a tool; it's the question of who controls/influences it that I think matters.  And it's no surprise that it protects those with wealth, since that's what it was designed to do (at least in the US). 

I view money as the source of tyranny. With a corrupt government and ignorant populace coming in second. A simplified division of course.

As long as there is money there will always be corporations, and they will do as corporations do, try and get as much of it as possible. It's not perfect, but it can be alright. I don't have a problem with billionaires as long as the general public is getting by, and then some. Money runs the world and those that have the most will always be able to influence something, anything. So a government will always be corrupt in some degree. That's why your country was originally intended to limit central authority. It's basically the only option you have in a monetary system.

But somehow, today, big government is good. In fact people are more and more coming to appreciate the fact that it should control everything. And when government controls everything, the corporations control everything. Because they have the resources.

[SLCPUNK]

Q:  If a man has no job and, thus, no income, and you cut his income taxes, how much does he save so that he has more to spend?

A: ZE-FUCKING-RO

A small business who receives a tax cut can use the savings to hire  people to increase his production, thus giving this man a job.

That's the theory.

The problem is: It hasn't worked so far.  At least not to the extent it needs to to stimulate economic recovery.  The scale just isn't large enough.  And the businesses where it IS large enough aren't hiring...they're simply pocketing the money. At least according to the current tax cuts and unemployment.

And if the dems agreed, and made the tax cut ATTACHED to actually creating a job...the Repubs would go up in arms about the restriction....saying the Dems were trying to be socialists and tell small business HOW to spend their money.

No amount of compromise seems to agree with the GOP thus far, which I find pathetic.

[polluxlm]

I'm well aware of the nature of the corporation. What you appear to miss out on is it's ability to consistently influence your government. If you got a problem with the economic system why don't you go out and protest the FED?

More Fed conspiracy theory non-sense....

Apparently you've come down with the Stockholm syndrome.

You can label the criticism any way you like, doesn't change the fact that the FED is a monopolistic, destructive institution that sells debt to the public.

[SLCPUNK]

Apparently you've come down with the Stockholm syndrome.

You can label the criticism any way you like, doesn't change the fact that the FED is a monopolistic, destructive institution that sells debt to the public.

Oh I'll label it alright. You're criticism of the "ignorant" public is laughable considering you can't comprehend the fundamental definition of a private corporation.

[polluxlm]

Is that so? What exactly is it that I don't comprehend?

[SLCPUNK]

Is that so? What exactly is it that I don't comprehend?

How many private corporations have their leadership appointed by the President of the United States?

[polluxlm]

Is that so? What exactly is it that I don't comprehend?

How many private corporations have their leadership appointed by the President of the United States?

You seem to be under the presumption I do not know that the FED is a special relationship between the government and private banks. I simply claim that it is not a government institution per se. Even the courts have ruled that.

[SLCPUNK]

Lets not back track...

How many private corporations have their leadership appointed by the POTUS?

How many private corporation fit this criteria? 

[freedom78]

Getting off fossil fuels is all well and good, but not if it's just used as an excuse to pocket some extra tax dollars and introduce even more tyranny to our lives.

Tyranny....in what shape or form?

In the shape of more taxation and regulation of human interaction. The ultimate goal being to run the earth like a global corporation, using constant fear as a catalyst.

You fear that government will become like a corporation, rather than fearing corporations that are already like corporations (because that's what they are) and which operate an asinine economic system in which everyone works their asses off for the exorbitant benefit of the few?  It's all just feudalism, dressed up pretty.

That's an oversimplification of the issue.

I'm well aware of the nature of the corporation. What you appear to miss out on is it's ability to consistently influence your government. If you got a problem with the economic system why don't you go out and protest the FED?

I'm not at all missing out on that.  I think I just see it differently than you.  You (seem...don't want to put words in mouths) view government as the problem and source of tyranny.  I view government as reacting to those with real power and influence, meaning that if the people in general had the power, rather than the select few, then government would properly react to them, rather than to corporatism and wealth.  Government is just a tool; it's the question of who controls/influences it that I think matters.  And it's no surprise that it protects those with wealth, since that's what it was designed to do (at least in the US). 

I view money as the source of tyranny. With a corrupt government and ignorant populace coming in second. A simplified division of course.

As long as there is money there will always be corporations, and they will do as corporations do, try and get as much of it as possible. It's not perfect, but it can be alright. I don't have a problem with billionaires as long as the general public is getting by, and then some. Money runs the world and those that have the most will always be able to influence something, anything. So a government will always be corrupt in some degree. That's why your country was originally intended to limit central authority. It's basically the only option you have in a monetary system.

But somehow, today, big government is good. In fact people are more and more coming to appreciate the fact that it should control everything. And when government controls everything, the corporations control everything. Because they have the resources.

I don't object to the money as tyranny argument, but the original limiting of American government wasn't to prevent government from becoming corrupt via money but to protect those with money (property) from those without (well...at least in part).  It was both a most egalitarian notion for its time, given that it did not proclaim a limit on property to a noble class, and a completely stratified one for many years later, in that it was a beginning of this fraudulent notion that hard work equals rewards, the mythology of the "American Dream".  

The only real conflict I have with your interpretation is that I can see no other means for collective action beyond government.  If we abolished government and acted collectively, that then would become government.  And, given that, there is no way for those who are unequal in so many ways to work toward bettering their futures than by influencing government or abolishing one for the establishment of another.  Even Marx, who didn't believe in the state at a good things, still had his dictatorship of the proletariat...a pure democracy and, as a means of decision making, a government.  Also, while I don't disagree that money has a disproportionate influence, I don't believe it has all influence.  Though the past decade has been a bad one with regard to economic stratification, the overall level of economic inequality in the US has diminished since the founding, largely because of government and gradually increasing support for workers' rights, a social safety net, etc. (and the mass exploitation of the third world...it's rather a zero sum game, I fear).    

[D]

I hope Obama will declare a major disaster for my home state of KY. WE got pelted with an ice storm that has made it just a living hell for those people affected.

[zosobob6]

I hope Obama will declare a major disaster for my home state of KY. WE got pelted with an ice storm that has made it just a living hell for those people affected.

dude, its been really bad in KY.  i got off lucky, electricity only went off for about six hours.  i dodged a bullett.  there are still i think, around 300,000 people without power.   but i would say that the response to the storm has been good.

[pilferk]

Ummm....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/

Does NOBODY in Washington pay their taxes?

I mean..it's a relatively minor infraction, apparently, but REALLY?!!??

[freedom78]

Ummm....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/

Does NOBODY in Washington pay their taxes?

I mean..it's a relatively minor infraction, apparently, but REALLY?!!??

I'm strongly considering moving there, for the tax shelter. 

[pilferk]

Looks like Daschle has decided to exit, stage right, as well.