Politics for dummies

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

Yes. I assume you are referring to WWII? If so, we were asked for our help, BUT, when it came time to pay for our participation, we ended up having to forgive the lion's share of what was owed us by those same countries, otherwise we'd have had to go to war with them, too.

Nanking.... was 4 years before we entered the war, if you're referring to the massacre there by the Japanese. If so, we had no part in it whatever.

I get the impression that you feel we should bear responsibility for being the world's policeman. If so, that's fine. But, for my part, considering how few would stand by us should we ever be the ones in need, I say screw em all.

Actually, the US had nothing to do with Nanking. Or Czechoslovakia. That was none of our concern. Neither was Poland or France. It wasn't until some jackasses blew the shit out of our Pacific Fleet that the US decided to add combat forces to help the "Mother Country" in their fight against Japan's Nazi ally. And the Brits and their Empire certainly proved their worth in the Pacific Theater.

And though it took years, the Brits paid us back. They didn't get the Marshall plan.

Dude, I'm a Libertarian. I don't like the US being the world police any more than you do. But liberty must be protected. And you can't do that by protecting savages that want to kill you.

[Guest TxFeller]

Amen.

[Guest TxFeller]

First Texas Liberal I think I've ever heard of. Must be from the DFW area. But then, that's not considered part of the real Texas.

I thought y'all were Americans there.  :scratchchin:

Oh well, every cart has to have a bad apple somewhere in the batch.

BTW, TBG, I note that in your response, you couldn't refute a single one of the stated points and, instead, resorted to attacking the person. Good job. Rove taught you well.

[TBG 150]

What response? I made one post to this thread. Get your facts straight before banging on your keyboard.

I make it a point to stay away from you brainwashed idiots. No amount of education will ever change you mind, so why even bother.

[Guest TxFeller]

*tsk tsk tsk* Again with the insults. One post was enough, now two. Not a real Texan, bad apple, brainwashed idiots. That's what you said, right? As for education, I don't need any. I LIVED it, saw it with my own eyes and experienced the bad effects of having done so, all thanks to the Republican God, a.k.a. Reagan, and his war on the middle class which still continues today. "All bow to the mighty 1%, heap scorn on the poor."

[Ozi]

[Guest TxFeller]

Under Reaganomics, you'll be damned lucky if your parents still HAVE a garage.

What billion-dollar business do you think Reagan started?

"Supply-side economics", otherwise known as Reaganomics, says (in its most basic terms) build it and they'll buy it. The truth is there are untold number of businesses who built it and never sold a single one. Creating a supply does not guarantee demand. It MIGHT, but don't count on it.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

That's funny. It was under Reaganomics that I was finally able to buy a house and make $30K more per year. That pulled me out of the lower class ratings of the Carter misery index. But then, I've always been private sector, so I'm less enthusiastic about the future since the state capitalists are now so firmly in control.

[Guest TxFeller]

That's funny. It was under Reaganomics that I was finally able to buy a house and make $30K more per year. That pulled me out of the lower class ratings of the Carter misery index. But then, I've always been private sector, so I'm less enthusiastic about the future since the state capitalists are now so firmly in control.

The year Carter was elected, we didn't get our November paychecks. That wasn't on him, though, because he hadn't taken office yet. He was just "President-elect". Stagflation took over during his term, but that was the only paycheck we ever didn't get paid on time.

I am very curious. What was it for you that took place during the 80s that propelled you into the middle or upper middle class? It surely couldn't have been the Reagan tax cuts because he took back nearly every bit of those cuts in 1987 by reducing the tax brackets to 2 (everything over $29,750 became taxable at 28%, from $1 up to $29,750 was taxed at 15%, raising taxes on the poorest of the poor by 36.4%).

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

The year Carter was elected, we didn't get our November paychecks. That wasn't on him, though, because he hadn't taken office yet. He was just "President-elect". Stagflation took over during his term, but that was the only paycheck we ever didn't get paid on time.

I am very curious. What was it for you that took place during the 80s that propelled you into the middle or upper middle class? It surely couldn't have been the Reagan tax cuts because he took back nearly every bit of those cuts in 1987 by reducing the tax brackets to 2 (everything over $29,750 became taxable at 28%, from $1 up to $29,750 was taxed at 15%, raising taxes on the poorest of the poor by 36.4%).

Here we go again.

This is what happened: I didn't get paid several checks during the Nixon, Ford and Carter administration on time because I was in the private sector and the business owners could not cover expenses (Their customer bases were dying). By the end of the Carter administration, it was because they couldn't borrow the money for operating income (Double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, lousy GDP -- that sort-of-a-not-very-good-thing.)

Yes, I remember Ford's "WIN buttons." They stood for Whip Inflation Now. Carter didn't have a button: he had a sweater.

The misery index got worse during all the years of the Carter administration, despite a liberal (aka socialistic) Congress. Reagan won by a landslide. Misery continued after the tax cuts; there was a minor course correction in policy ("We went too far." --Stockman). This lasted two years. After that, instead of the strategy of spending money immediately before it became worthless, the strategy was turned into invest, invest, invest. Unemployment and inflation decreased, and GDP and tax revenues actually increased.

It became a good time to invest your money in a device that would generate new income potential. Like old garage hobby businesses like Hewlett-Packard or even new ones, like Apple. I took that train. Under Reagan, I bought a house by assuming a 19% interest (Carter administration loan) and refinancing it at 7.35% (Reagan era) which was then paid-off in 14 years. I had good credit so I didn't get that for loan for free from the CRA at taxpayer expense. (I'm ready to talk about the CRA and our long term miserable economy, but probably this is not a good forum.)

My experience is that State Capitalism generally screws up natural economics big time and leads to bigger booms and busts. A government simply cannot continue to suck up wealth from the private sector that generates it and expect that more will be generated. Nor can it make up for the loss of value by printing Monopoly money. We need productive private sector jobs, not over-paid unproductive bureaucratic leeches. Got that? http://usdebtclock.org/

---

My previous post regarding Locke referred to the revolutionary idea (then liberal, now conservative) is that a government's legitimacy is created among men to protect their common liberty; not by a government to protect its own power over them. The citizens remain sovereign. At the time, that was an exceptional political concept.

[Guest TxFeller]

My problems with conservative politics as it exists today are several, among which is the fallacy that decreasing taxes on the wealthiest among us will create jobs. What I have seen is that decreasing the taxes for that group only serves to increase the wealth gap, but produces no jobs. As evidence for that, I submit the recession of 2008. Unemployment (as it is incorrectly estimated these days) went up to 17? %. The tax rate had been lowered under GWB to a top rate of 35% from the previous 39.6%. The jobs, those paying $11/hr or better, did not come until 2013 -- after the top tax rate increased, not decreased, and Romney was defeated. This country became the strongest nation in the world with a top tax rate exceeding 90%. Jobs were created because it was counter-productive for the wealthy to sit on their cash. It forced them to actually DO something with their money other than invest in stocks and bonds.

Another problem I have with conservatism is the notion that we can allow the wealth gap to continually increase, doing nothing to stop or slow it, and expect to survive as a nation. Without a strong and growing middle class, we will eventually have nothing but dirt poor and obscenely rich. You speak of socialism as a bad thing. How about class warfare? Is that a good thing? How about if it comes to the scenario I just described and the poor decide they are going to engage in REAL class warfare, a la France 1789? The super-wealthy may be able to hire armed protection, but, through attrition of those forces, eventually the .1%-ers will be slaughtered. A man with a consistently full belly doesn't turn his thoughts to anarchy and vengeance. But, if something isn't done to correct the extreme imbalance that now exists, it IS eventually going to come down to a real class war. In the meantime, be happy the increasingly poor have a crust of bread and quit bitching about socialism. Every day, all day long, socialism beats the hell out of anarchy and mass murder. If you doubt this will ever happen, or you think you can hold off those who will want to raid your larder, there aren't enough bullets manufactured in all of history to stop them all. Think of socialism as a kind of life insurance.

Education is not the silver bullet all the politicians claim. Once you reach 45, if not 40, if you become unemployed your hopes of finding a job that will be suitable to your experience level (your KSAs, as the guvmint is so fond of referring to it as) are nearly non-existent, and it's highly unlikely you will ever reach your prior peak again in earnings potential UNLESS... you're seeking a senior VP job or a C(x)O job. You have become an insurance risk and you have skills that give you an expectation of a certain salary range. Why pay you what you're worth when they can hire a fresh college grad, pay him nothing, and pocket the rest? It doesn't matter that he won't have your level of expertise. All that matters these days is ensuring the CEO's annual bonus is in the 8-digit range. The white collar jobs he's been sending to India, Brazil, China, Malaysia, Viet Nam, and Philippines are the ones you were counting on being able to get if your company let you go, and they collected tax credits for having off-shored those jobs. All the college degrees in the world aren't going to get you anywhere in that situation. Your only hope is self-employment, and that's a truly slim hope for the overwhelming majority. Finding a niche that isn't beyond being saturated is a challenge that few can overcome.

[Foamy T. Squirrel]

I do not see how sucking money from the productive middle and lower classes for the purpose of re-distribution to politicians and their wealthy supporters or unproductive-but-voting poor masses helps the economy.

If you don't like the rich getting rich off the backs of the middle classes, then I suggest you send an invoice to Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Jackson, the Clinton Foundation, Obama, and countless other liberal members of the "Vanguard of the Proletariat" who have gotten rich by professing "economic justice" for the poor.