DOGE (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

I have said that Conservatives lack a propensity to engage in critical thinking.

Oh, I don't know about that. We've been fairly critical of you.

the problems we are facing could be solved by higher taxes on return on investment and on large corporations. In particular the financial sector.

We may be talking degree rather than kind, but remember the Maslow pyramid. If you tax something enough, people lose interest in continuing to produce and getting nothing back for it, particularly when they see folks on the dole doing nothing in particular. If the taxes are too high, there is no INCENTIVE to invest because you won't keep it anyway. Considering that per a non-recent article from Harvard Business Review, that 80% of all small business start-ups fail within five years, people need to see that that the business expectation value exceeds the startup capitalization. Otherwise, the odds are skewed against you and there is no reason to take the risk. It is all about risk/reward, and if you take away the reward you unbalance the risk equations.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Have you ever wondered why he and Gates are so hated by so many conservatives? Why, propaganda my dear Watson. They went on record against tax cuts for the rich. And the propaganda machine went into high gear,

I wouldn't say they are hated by conservatives exclusively. They both appear to be extremely hypocritical, so in that sense it's propaganda.

 

[Mike Krailo]

No worries, I thought you were explaining it to me. I took on this role of challenging conservative points of view, right here in a discussion dominated by them, I can take a little heat.

I don't take any of this personally. Interestingly, some of my closest folks are conservatives. And unlike liberals, I believe conservatives (everyday people, not Presidents) are some of the most giving and kind hearted folks I know. Oh wait, GW was a real American Patriot, with a Texas gift for being welcoming and approachable.

I just don't want the conversation to devolve.

 

[Thales750]

Oh, I don't know about that. We've been fairly critical of you.



We may be talking degree rather than kind, but remember the Maslow pyramid. If you tax something enough, people lose interest in continuing to produce and getting nothing back for it, particularly when they see folks on the dole doing nothing in particular. If the taxes are too high, there is no INCENTIVE to invest because you won't keep it anyway. Considering that per a non-recent article from Harvard Business Review, that 80% of all small business start-ups fail within five years, people need to see that that the business expectation value exceeds the startup capitalization. Otherwise, the odds are skewed against you and there is no reason to take the risk. It is all about risk/reward, and if you take away the reward you unbalance the risk equations.

Maybe a little history might be interesting. In the fifties and sixties the reinvestment in industrial assets was very high. In the 80s Reagan lowered taxes for the wealthy and continue to invite imports. That's when the separation of wealth took off.

Not from hard work and ingenuity, but buy purchasing Congress.

Take the risk? If all returns on investment are taxed the same, then you still have to invest? Don't say they will simply take their money overseas. They have been investing the money you pay for health, home and auto insurance into China for the last 30 years. So that ridiculous argument is pretty moot.

I think you guys (conservatives) are confused about the difference between greed for power and personal wealth. Nothing will halt the quest for power, so we have to take from them what we can. We, meaning every other living human on the planet, other than a million of so ultrarich.

The problem is we have allowed them to make all the rules, and the cycle of reinvestment is the biggest drain on the wealth of the people. Work, is no longer an avenue for achieving personal wealth. The ultra rich have seen to that.

This is a multifaceted problem, I am speaking to one aspect of that. Why do conservative completely reject any conversation involving taxing the wealthiest investor class? That is not rhetorical Doc.

 

[Thales750]

I just don't want the conversation to devolve.

Yeah no danger of that around here. I include myself of course.

 

[Thales750]

I wouldn't say they are hated by conservatives exclusively. They both appear to be extremely hypocritical, so in that sense it's propaganda.

Really? Wow is there no subject that is affected by Conservative Propaganda that you will admit?

Or do you just like the cool aid so much, you just don't care?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Really? Wow is there no subject that is affected by Conservative Propaganda that you will admit?

Or do you just like the cool aid so much, you just don't care?

It's not that I don't care. Liberalism and Conservatism are two sides of the same coin. Is there propaganda on the conservative side? Obviously.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Take the risk? If all returns on investment are taxed the same, then you still have to invest? Don't say they will simply take their money overseas.

But you see, that is part of the problem from the other direction. Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - operates on risk/reward considerations, whether consciously or instinctively. It's an evolutionary thing. From the J.P. Morgan or J.D. Rockefeller investing in some factory, bank, or other business - to the toddler standing at the edge of the waves on the shore looking at the water longingly yet fearfully - we all consider risk before going forward.

So... you want to tax the rich. OK, I get that. When famous bank-robber Willie Sutton was asked "Why did you rob so many banks?", his answer was "That's where they keep the money." So you want to tax the rich because they are the ones who have the money.

Hey, it's logical. EXCEPT that every person understands that there are risks in all major (and quite a few minor) choices. INCLUDING the risk that they lose more money through exorbitant taxes if they stay than taxes in other nations if they leave. Risk/reward at the personal level. Everyone has their own level of acceptable risk. When the tax liability risk becomes too great... Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie. If you want to keep all that money here, you have to let people keep enough of it to not trigger the risk that leads to flight. Go ahead, try to legislate that so that they can't leave. OOPSIE, there is this little constitutional freedom of movement clause that could tie up such legislation forever.

You cannot forget McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819 SCOTUS case) when then-Chief Justice John Marshall offered the statement "The power to tax is the power to destroy." He was talking about states taxing a federal bank, but the statement is valid for more than that narrow case. When you tax the bejeezus out of the rich, you are looking to destroy them. Well, excuse me, but that. You have long ago described this as a class struggle issue. Well, sometimes the classes exist as they do because they are too lazy to advance themselves. Or they are too dumb and they know it. Or they are too afraid to take a chance on bettering themselves for fear of failure. Or they fear persecution for daring to attempt betterment. I don't claim to know why classes form - but they do.

Even when Russia was strictly communist, oligarchs came into being. Even in socialist countries, there are haves and have nots. Over 2000 years ago, Jesus offered the opinion that the poor would always be with us. Attempting to destroy classes - by riots and rebellion, government oppression, excessive taxation, or any other method you want to name? Doomed to failure as demonstrated by pretty much all of recorded history. Go ahead and spit into the wind. Hope your shirt is washable.

 

[Thales750]

But you see, that is part of the problem from the other direction. Everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - operates on risk/reward considerations, whether consciously or instinctively. It's an evolutionary thing. From the J.P. Morgan or J.D. Rockefeller investing in some factory, bank, or other business - to the toddler standing at the edge of the waves on the shore looking at the water longingly yet fearfully - we all consider risk before going forward.

So... you want to tax the rich. OK, I get that. When famous bank-robber Willie Sutton was asked "Why did you rob so many banks?", his answer was "That's where they keep the money." So you want to tax the rich because they are the ones who have the money.

Hey, it's logical. EXCEPT that every person understands that there are risks in all major (and quite a few minor) choices. INCLUDING the risk that they lose more money through exorbitant taxes if they stay than taxes in other nations if they leave. Risk/reward at the personal level. Everyone has their own level of acceptable risk. When the tax liability risk becomes too great... Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie. If you want to keep all that money here, you have to let people keep enough of it to not trigger the risk that leads to flight. Go ahead, try to legislate that so that they can't leave. OOPSIE, there is this little constitutional freedom of movement clause that could tie up such legislation forever.

You cannot forget McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819 SCOTUS case) when then-Chief Justice John Marshall offered the statement "The power to tax is the power to destroy." He was talking about states taxing a federal bank, but the statement is valid for more than that narrow case. When you tax the bejeezus out of the rich, you are looking to destroy them. Well, excuse me, but that. You have long ago described this as a class struggle issue. Well, sometimes the classes exist as they do because they are too lazy to advance themselves. Or they are too dumb and they know it. Or they are too afraid to take a chance on bettering themselves for fear of failure. Or they fear persecution for daring to attempt betterment. I don't claim to know why classes form - but they do.

Even when Russia was strictly communist, oligarchs came into being. Even in socialist countries, there are haves and have nots. Over 2000 years ago, Jesus offered the opinion that the poor would always be with us. Attempting to destroy classes - by riots and rebellion, government oppression, excessive taxation, or any other method you want to name? Doomed to failure as demonstrated by pretty much all of recorded history. Go ahead and spit into the wind. Hope your shirt is washable.

Still no explanation of why those super high tax rates worked in the 1950s and 60s. Another thing you are not factoring in is the size of the value of the financial sector. There is a virtual infinite cash supply in that sector.

Another factor is automation. A time is coming, and the last 40 years has shown that it is already being visited upon us. Labor is becoming worthless.

This is not a class struggle. This is that the super rich are now the Crown. What are we going to do when there is nothing left for humans to build, or sell? People say the same thing you say, but about regulations. Funny, the chemical industry is one of the most regulated in our society, maybe pharma has more. And yet, petrochemicals make up 28% of out exports.

As far as Jesus, he meant the spiritually poor. The American Revolution is really the only example you have to look at for a successful model. And as you can see, the rich are trying to undo that one as well.

We cannot allow that to happen.

 

[Thales750]

It's not that I don't care. Liberalism and Conservatism are two sides of the same coin. Is there propaganda on the conservative side? Obviously.

It all serves the same master, greed at the top.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As far as Jesus, he meant the spiritually poor.

NO. EMPHATICALLY NO. Read Matt 26:11 and surrounding context. OR John 12:8. Or Mark 14:7. Or read James 2:15-16 for context. Or Luke 14:13-14 for explicit context. Jesus was most absolutely and unequivocally referring to people who had no money and no resources, people who were starving, lame, blind, etc. Beggars. You have shown yet again that you make claims that are not correct. You have zero credibility right now. And what bothers me the most is that it is an atheist who has to correct you for your Biblical misinterpretation. You obviously either never knew or forgot that I was a Methodist for about the first 35 years of my life. I lost my faith only when my mother was dying of Alzheimer's complications.

 

[Thales750]

NO. EMPHATICALLY NO. Read Matt 26:11 and surrounding context. OR John 12:8. Or Mark 14:7. Or read James 2:15-16 for context. Or Luke 14:13-14 for explicit context. Jesus was most absolutely and unequivocally referring to people who had no money and no resources, people who were starving, lame, blind, etc. Beggars. You have shown yet again that you make claims that are not correct. You have zero credibility right now. And what bothers me the most is that it is an atheist who has to correct you for your Biblical misinterpretation. You obviously either never knew or forgot that I was a Methodist for about the first 35 years of my life. I lost my faith only when my mother was dying of Alzheimer's complications.

I should have written that better. It was a call for people to be generous, and not neglect the poor. I interpreted that as the ungenerous are the poor in spirit.

Corrected I stand in this case, but having no credibility is every thing about MAGA, and you certainly believe they are credible. So, you are a little hypocritical.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

having no credibility is every thing about MAGA, and you certainly believe they are credible.

Considering how the Democrats said for months that Joe Biden was just fine ... until he "blew up" in the Biden-Trump debate. The Bidenomics crowd has no more credibility, and maybe it is just an opinion, but I think they have LESS credibility. It's not black and white. It has always been a continuum of opinions. To me it is a matter of choosing the lesser evil. And I have done so.

 

[Steve R.]

Corrected I stand in this case, but having no credibility is every thing about MAGA, and you certainly believe they are credible. So, you are a little hypocritical.

Considering how the Democrats said for months that Joe Biden was just fine ... until he "blew up" in the Biden-Trump debate. The Bidenomics crowd has no more credibility, and maybe it is just an opinion, but I think they have LESS credibility.

The cartoon below illustrates the themes where Democrats are "rejecting" moderation and common sense. Hence they have no credibility. Conservatives on the other hand are restoring moderation and common sense to this Nation.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm regesrered independent.

That has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Therefore, it must be the latest form of virtue signaling. In my state, it disenfranchises you so I would NEVER register as an independent since it would keep me from voting in any primary given that to vote in a primary, you MUST declare for a particular party (at least in my state). I was always registered as a Democrat, not because I would vote for a Democrat in the general election but because at least I might have some influence in choosing the least bad Democrat to run against the candidate I was more likely to ultimately vote for. It was only in 2016 that I switched my party registration to Republican so I could vote in the Republican primary AGAINST DJT, FYI. Even back then I agreed with Trump on all major issues but he was too contentious to get anything done given how corrupt DC is. I was right about that one. Looking back on it, it was good Trump lost in 2020 because it gave him the time to hone his political skills and gather together a team who would support his policies. He's going like gangbusters and actually doing the stuff he wanted to do in 2016 but was prevented from doing it by his own advisors and the Republican party.

When you are hiring illegal aliens to work for slave wages, you are a criminal yourself and a scumbag who takes advantage of the weakest and poorest among us. AND you are also hurting the poorest citizens in your community who are being displaced by the illegal workers because they can't afford to live on the slave wages. This is about as self-serving an action as I can imagine. Abusing people for your own gain is despicable. You talk about the "robber barons". This is the exact behavior that led originally to the formation of unions. The unions were originally to protect the workers from abusers like your employers. Now, they are just a conduit for money to the Democrat party and are a detriment to workers and businesses alike.

 

[Thales750]

When you are hiring illegal aliens to work for slave wages, you are a criminal yourself and a scumbag who takes advantage of the weakest and poorest among us. AND you are also hurting the poorest citizens in your community who are being displaced by the illegal workers because they can't afford to live on the slave wages. This is about as self-serving an action as I can imagine. Abusing people for your own gain is despicable. You talk about the "robber barons". This is the exact behavior that led originally to the formation of unions. The unions were originally to protect the workers from abusers like your employers. Now, they are just a conduit for money to the Democrat party and are a detriment to workers and businesses alike.

Hey Doc, why are you not pointing the insane erroneous nature of it's statement and releving Pat of the burden of even a pretense of credibility? It seems that credibility, to you, must mean it alligns with your world view.


Pat, you should probably stop speaking to things you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat, you stop speaking to things you know absolutely nothing about.

Deflect all you want. You admitted that your company hires illegal aliens. That makes them criminals as well.

 

[Thales750]

Deflect all you want. You admitted that your company hires illegal aliens. That makes them criminals as well.

I own an engineering company, I'm pretty sure I never said we hire illegals.

 

[Steve R.]

Pat, you should probably stop speaking to things you know absolutely nothing about.

You endlessly make provocative comments on topics where you demonstrate that you are clueless. Consequently, you have no credibility for making remarks, such as the one above.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Hey Doc, why are you not pointing the insane erroneous nature of it's statement and releving Pat of the burden of even a pretense of credibility?

I am truly sorry to have to tell you that I am not sure I recognize which part of her statement is getting you all wound up. Could you be more specific? Though I have to say "Nice try" in your attempt to get me to ASSUME something and thereby alienate Pat, after which you can wash your hands of any wrongdoing.