Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Open Debate

Yes or No: Do you think that an Osama Bin Laden tape will be "released" in these final 2 weeks until the election?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

you should rename your site to "LibroMarxist- Designed Intoxicated". i found your page accidently and felt sorry because none of your stories have any posts so i figured i'd take a moment to tell you that you are indeed an idiot.. the bad thing about that is you can't really fix stupid but you can do the rest of us a favor and stay out of politics. i work very hard for every penny i earn and if someone else(barring physical or mental handicap) can not make a living for themselves in the united states of america, then too bad for them.. this whole liberal "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" mentality is going to drive our country into the ground.. It's not the governments job to decide how much of my money i can keep and how much money is excessive. money is earned not distributed.. if you didn't take the proper steps in your life to obtain living wage, then that's your fault.. if you got knocked up and can't afford to take care of your kids, then that's your fault. shouldn't have gotten knocked up.. right now i pay over 65% of my income in taxes after federal, state, social security, medicare, local paroll taxs, embedded taxes in goods(around 23% avg) and local payroll taxes. That means I work from january to almost august for the government. Democrates raise taxes to cover their big spending vote-pandering policies that keep them in power. conservatives(note i didn't say republican here) believe in low spending, low taxes.. this whole robin hood tax the rich stuff is asinine. obama wants to take from one citizen and give to another.. if you tried to do that you would go to jail. remember, a poor mans dollar is worth just as much as rich mans dollar.. People with money are the ones that drive our economy by creating jobs and investing money which in turns increases the overall value of the rich mans dollar and the poor mans dollar. allow peoples money to work for the economy, not the governments pocket book.. imagine our economy is a cruise ship and the wealthy person is the engine.. when you tax the wealthy, its like shutting down a cylinder in the engine and the whole ship goes slower... democratic philosophy defies the laws of economics and will eventually drive our country to the ground.. it's funny how the rest of the world wants a weaker america... combine that with the fact they also want obama as president.. that says a lot to me

Librocrat said...

Ha. I have a rule: No one that does not capitalize the first letter after a period or does not know the difference between "mans" (as in: more than one man) and "man's" (as in: belonging to a man) has the right to call me an idiot.

Not only is your grasp of tax policy so blatantly false that I have a hard time believing you graduated from high school, but your Fox Newsian propaganda is neither intelligent nor fact based, and thus all you have done in your comments is waste bytes.

Also, if you pay 65% of your income on taxes (which you don't, you made that number up) - we've had a Republican president and 12 years of a Republican congress. Guess who would have raised those taxes, homeslice.

Do me a favor: Think for yourself. You'll be surprised what you learn.

Do me another favor: Please capitalize when you comment on my blog. Sentence structure and grammar rules were created for a reason.

Jazzy said...

LOL, Great set down. I will do my best to follow proper grammer so that I will not get reamed like anon. Anyway, to answer you post, you betcha. I have been waiting for the GOP to pull something relating to foreign policy so McCain can ride in on his trusty steed (Palin) to save the day. However, Americans need to realize we MUST take care of home first. We are no good to anyone else without have a strong economy.

Librocrat said...

One thing I will add, Jazzy (though this is not in direct reference to your post):

There are going to be a lot of narratives about this election when it is over, if Obama wins. People are going to say the failing economy helped him pull ahead, or that McCain lost it because of his gaffes.

But I think that undermines the fact that Barack Obama is a phenomenal candidate. The persona that he has set forth, including his detailed and easy to understand plans, his logical analysis of problems (foreign and domestic) and his understanding of compromise make him a legitimately great hope for a president - more than anyone that has come along in decades.

It may be that the economy crashing is why Obama wins this election - but it is the gullible, blind, uninformed and unintelligent populace that would have been to blame if he didn't. And because of that, I feel that - in general - it is unfair to say Obama won because of the economy, or Democrats are needed to fix the economy, etc., because on almost every issue outside of the economy, Barack Obama represents intelligent, logical progress. We have yet to see if he can live up to those expectations, but we're lucky enough to see someone that can raise them as high as they are.

Not exactly a reference to your comment. Just a thought I had.

Also, you can spell poorly or butcher grammar all you like. I'm only opposed to long, single paragraph rants using poor grammar, monosyllabic words and incorrect punctuation by people who think that after writing that crap they have earned the right to call me stupid. You would think that someone that believes they are smarter than I am would take the time to make a cohesive, intelligent argument in order to prove that point. And yet...

josh said...

the united states of america has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world behind germany.. the democrats are the ones that pushed for and implemented these tax policies for the purpose of funding their wealth distribution/vote buying policies. how does this affect us? it sends our businesses overseas where the tax code is less punishing, thus decreasing job rates in our country. i love it when liberals complain about jobless rates when they are the ones that promoted the legislation that lead to the spike in unemployment by sending our jobs overseas.. kinda like the housing market and the current downfall of our economy. the libs begged and pleaded to make it easier for people with bad credit and lack of income to get a loan. those who were against this(conservatives), argued that there is a reason why home loans are based on credit/job history, so that they can pay their damn mortgage!! now we have a large chunk of these loans in default which created a snowball effect that hit the banking system, fannie/freddy and then the whole market. now the tax payers in this country are stuck with the tab. what's really sad about this is the people that actually paid their mortgage on time are feeling the pain for the bad decisions of others. it was the democrats that pushed for sup-prime mortgages and with nobama up to his neck in fannie/freddy/acorn(subsidiaries) contributions, there’s no way he’ll admit this policy is wrong. instead he's still pushing for high risk lending. that boggles my mind. but it sounds good to the voters, especially voters with little income. "vote for me and i'll make sure you can own a home weather you can pay for it or not." this is what we call "pandering." please explain to me how this is not stupid. and please don't even bring up the "if we weren't in this war" argument. the percent of the budget that the war consumes is minimal compared to the liberal social programs(that may be redundant) that the dems insist our country need... like social security- privatize it. imagine if all the money you contributed to ss over your life was put in to a private fund that only you could access, kinda like a 401k and generated interest. instead the dems rather have their hands on it. the dems think that you're just a regular citizen and what makes you think that you can manage your own retirement. "that's what nanny government is for." there are far too many social programs to list here but the war is not very high on the expense list in our budget. do me a favor.. take an economics class. i’ll close with some nobamanomics... when asked if he would raise taxes on the “evil rich” immediately, he said no and the reason he gave was that it would have a negative effect with a bad economy. why then would it not have a negative effect on a good economy? he knows this, but he’d rather pander to the tax bracket with the highest voting population. according to nobama, it’s all about fairness and spreading the wealth. to him, it doesn’t matter if taxing the wealthy leads to a weaker dollar for all americans... rich, middle class and poor. he plays on the voters ignorance by preaching rhetoric with little meaning in a graceful manor while trying to disguise his socialist policies. he’s definitely a socialist, there’s no denying that... forget nobamanomics, what about all of his associations? i love how he has an excuse for each one and the list is pretty long... wright, pfleger, ayers, rezco, khalidi, jones, meeks and the list keeps going and going... by the way, sorry i called you an idiot:).. that wasn’t very nice of me. oh, and i’ll give you my name this time

josh said...

one more thing.. you asked how 60% of my income goes to taxes.. well here goes: start with $1000/paycheck and spend it all(which i do to get by)... roughly 30%(give or take a percent) goes to federal, state, local, social se-screwyou-ty and medicare from my paycheck. got $700 left. sales tax on items i buy is about 6% where i live which brings it down to $660.. embedded taxes in goods is around 23% avg which brings it down to $430.. and there are some other taxes to pay like car tags($300/year = $12.50/paycheck) which brings it down to $417.50. i claim an accurate number of dependents on my payroll withholdings so at the end of the year, i usually don't get anything back and if i do it's always less than a hundred bucks(4.17/paycheck) of which i'll add back in. that brings the total amount of my paycheck that i actually get to keep or aquire value for to $421.67 or 42%.. so maybe i was a little off when i said i pay 60% in taxes.. it's actually about 58%

Librocrat said...

Howdy Josh,

Here's the deal - your mathematics on how you reached 60% is actually somewhat clever. The math is a little wrong, but an interesting thought. A few issues, though:

1) Taxes on goods are not that high. And although I think it is interesting you tried to include them, in reality the creation of the goods is not taxed - the profit that the company made is taxed. So it is not exactly a tax "markup" but rather the amount the company profits. That is, unless you are talking about imported goods - but taxing imported goods are designed to get more companies to spend within the United States, which I would argue is a good thing, even if it does not happen. If a company does not want to invest in America, they should be taxed.

2) You blame Democrats for outsourcing and I'm sorry to say that is completely false. In fact, the exact opposite is true. There used to be incentives to hire American workers that the Democrats put in place. For example, if you hired American workers, you would receive various tax breaks and dividends, etc. As soon as Bush took office, with the help of the Republican congress, he actually abolished benefits for companies because he, as well as the Republican congress, actually WANTED outsourcing to occur - because outsourcing meant more profit for companies, which he believed would improve the market.

That is why you will notice that outsourcing ballooned in exponentially in 2002-2004, when the Republicans controlled the presidency and congress.

3) You list things like your 401K that the Democrats "ruined" - here's the thing - it is well known (even the chairman of the federal reserve under Bush JUST YESTERDAY said that his policies are what helped cause the economic problems) that the Republican free market strategy didn't work. The 401K is invested directly into the stock market. The stock market crashed because of Bush and the 401K lost a lot of money.

Now, had Bush also had his way, all of your social security would have been locked in there as well. This stock market crash would have left you bankrupt and pennyless, all because of well known Bush policies.

4) I want to give you some closing thoughts because I am running short on time:

I hear you blaming the Democrats for a number of different things. How taxing ruined the economy, how social problems which cost money are ruining jobs, etc.

They are interesting arguments and ones I simply disagree with, but obviously you are welcome to believe them if you want. What you need to remember, however, is that you are blaming Democrats for things that happened during a Republican presidency and congress - and the way that the Government works, the group in charge is really the only group that can pass legislative policy. Democrats CAN'T pass these laws or cause these problems that you claim they can cause, because they would need 50 or 60 votes, and they only had 40. They can't even get most of their policies up for a vote.

Therefore, it is impossible for them to have caused these problems - and every problem you mentioned (except for the creation of social programs) occured or ballooned (outsourcing began when the Internet became more mainstream, but it did not balloon as it did until about 2003) within the past 8 years.

You'll hear a number of high profile Republicans blame Democrats for many of these problems. But that part is what is known as "Rovian Politics." Named after Karl Rove, the goal is to blame Democrats for things they could not have done, and claim you did things that you did not do. It is why Sarah Palin said she did not support the bridge to nowhere, even though she did support it, took money for it, and only canceled the project after it became a national joke. The idea is that if you lie about what happened, the majority of America will not bother to find out the truth about it.

So you are welcome to believe what you want to believe, but some of what you claim just simply cannot be blamed on Democrats, because the reality is that the exact opposite happened. More outsourcing occurred because Republican legislation supported outsourcing. Sub-Prime mortgages were offered because the Bush policy was the provide money to the banks and let them do whatever they want with it, and Alan Greenspan supported it (which he recently said was a mistake). All of these things happened after 2001. In fact, Alan Greenspan had a lot to do with everything that went wrong in the economy, and he is a lifelong Republican.

You can believe that the Democrats to blame if you want, but there is really no evidence that any of that is the case. Even if you want to blame some negative things that happened during the Clinton years on Democrats, Republicans still controlled congress by a large margin.

In other words, Democrats couldn't do anything because they weren't in charge of anything - and while you may try to blame them for things, almost every economic and social problem we have now was caused within the last 10 or so years, all by Republican congresses and a Republican president.

josh said...

i can't argue with you.. you are way too far off base to even get a point across. i know i'm 100% correct on my assessment of the tax structure. not to brag, but i have a degree in economics and on this issue, i know what i'm talking about.. embedded taxes are at a 23% average.. look it up!! there are plenty of sources online. this will be my last post on your site, so with that said.. good luck to you. i enjoy a good debate and i hold no hard feelings:)

Librocrat said...

Yeah, I looked up embedded taxes and I see what you are saying, and I still completely disagree. For example, embedded taxes include your percentage of social security in the workplace. So you are getting money paid for you that is simply being taken away again by the price of things. That breaks even. Similarly, as I mentioned above, corporate income tax (ie, taxes on money that they profited) is technically taken after the goods are sold (even if the value of them is included in the price of the items).

You are essentially talking about this: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Also, there are other things to consider. For example, the rise in the cost of goods is another reason that minimum wage increases, meaning that you are getting paid more to coincide with the rising costs of goods.

Also, your idea is something that, why I can understand your point of view, I fundamentally disagree with - and that is that these taxes are somehow affecting your life in a way that if they are lifted they would not.

Now, to be fair to both of us, this is simply the difference between Democratic and Republican principles on how the economy works - so there is a reason that we disagree, and I know that is not going to be fixed by what I say here.

But I sincerely do not believe in, and see no proof of, the idea that lifting taxes and creating a more free market economy is likely to increase jobs and improve cost of living. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true - companies will charge the same amount for their products and simply pocket the difference, rather than passing the savings onto the consumer.

Here, think of it this way - The American Dream is that you can earn a lot of money through hard work and someday become wealthy, correct?

Well, imagine that you now have the opportunity to do that - Say you have two offers:

One: I will give you 1 million dollars every year.
Two: I will give you 2 million dollars every year, but you can use the money to give to other people to do more work for you and you may or may not make more money, probably not but it is possible. You also have the option of not giving the money away.

Which would you take? You would take the 2 million and probably not give the money away. That is what basic human instinct (and the American Dream) is - get as much money as you can on as minimal amount of work that you can.

I remain unconvinced, and recent economic events support my theory, that by removing these taxes businesses are all of the sudden going to pay more for employees and hire more workers. From experience, my belief is that most businesses will continue to pay as little money as possible to their employees, they will try to hire the least amount of people they can and they will try to rake in the most money that they can.

BUT, even beyond that, it also makes it easier to exploit, break the law, and perform poor lending practices just like the banks recently did. Human beings are imperfect, and greed makes them much more so.

Obviously, this is not something we can agree on, because it is based on a core belief in our philosophies. I'm not even necessarily trying to convince you that I'm right. But I am trying to explain to you why I disagree with your assertions, and while I can see where you are coming from and why you want to keep the money you earn, etc., as far as I'm concerned I see no proof your life would be better without the taxes (because I expect other things, such as minimum wage to drop and cost of living to increase when there is are no restrictions) and I have seen proof that your life will be better with good government programs.

One final thought and then I will leave you alone since we will not agree:

Money is relative. If you make 50,000 dollars, but it costs you 52,000 dollars to live well, you will be in debt. If you make only 10,000 dollars after taxes, but it only costs you 8,000 to live, you will live well.

Government regulation (which requires and uses taxes), along with other government programs, help make sure that companies cannot overcharge you for everything and make it so you can barely live. Social programs are the only thing the government pays for that may not benefit you (necessarily) but making sure other people are kept safe and healthy makes it so you can be safe and healthy as well. That's a financial sacrifice I am willing to make, and not one that is as large as it seems.