Release 'The Jeb'

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]

True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[/quote]

He also might want to look up what “total war” is and then consider the consequences of losing WW2…

The situation today is much different, and a tax increase is the last thing this country needs.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me. You think high taxes for an important total war are “good” but high taxes for other stuff at “bad”. Fine. Ok with me.

But whether a tax rate pays for stuff you think is “good” or stuff that is “bad”, the tax rate doesn’t constitute any kind of “theft.” We just democratically debate and decide whether we raise or lower it based on persuading what stuff is “good” and “bad”.

To say taxation is theft is just more melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-government crowd. These are the same folks that insist that nearly everything they don’t in government or policy isn’t simply bad or stupid or misguided - it’s nearly always “unconstitutional!!!”.

Democracy produces winners and losers. Taxation - even at high rates to pay for stupid things - isn’t theft.
[/quote]

did i offer an opinion good or bad about the taxation during ww2? Please feel free to continue with your profound assumptions and complete lack of context with every post. [/quote]

Then why don’t you tell me what the point of your post was, as it’s otherwise irrelevant to the point I am making.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Tax rates in and around World War 2 reached as high as 94% - was that “theft”?
[/quote]

True, but practically no one paid such a high rate because of the many write offs that were available at that time.
[/quote]

He also might want to look up what “total war” is and then consider the consequences of losing WW2…

The situation today is much different, and a tax increase is the last thing this country needs.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me. You think high taxes for an important total war are “good” but high taxes for other stuff at “bad”. Fine. Ok with me.

But whether a tax rate pays for stuff you think is “good” or stuff that is “bad”, the tax rate doesn’t constitute any kind of “theft.” We just democratically debate and decide whether we raise or lower it based on persuading what stuff is “good” and “bad”.

To say taxation is theft is just more melodramatic rhetoric from the anti-government crowd. These are the same folks that insist that nearly everything they don’t in government or policy isn’t simply bad or stupid or misguided - it’s nearly always “unconstitutional!!!”.

Democracy produces winners and losers. Taxation - even at high rates to pay for stupid things - isn’t theft.
[/quote]

You are spot on.

And this is one of many problems that I have with libertarians.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

We just democratically debate and decide…

[/quote]

In theory AND it used to be that way. No longer. We are increasingly ruled by an oligarchy. We’re not completely there yet but it’s foolish to think our entrenched oligarchic bureaucracy that attempts to wear the mask of democracy is immersed in some fucking bastion of democratic debate.

And I’m no card-carrying libertarian anarchist sumbitch either. Not even close and you know it so leave your broad paint brush in the bucket and don’t even go there or I’ll travel cross country and burn your trailer house down.

No sale. Try peddling that to some sucker somewhere but not here.
[/quote]

Bureaucrats don’t set tax rates - Congress does. Congress is still elected. You can complain about how they are elected - I certainly do - but it doesn’t mean they aren’t democratically elected.

Since they are, and they set tax rates, taxation ain’t theft, which was the claim.

Oh, and don’t waste keystrokes on trying to bluster and buffalo. Doesn’t work.

[quote] pushharder wrote:

That’s the intended formula. The intended formula has been spit out by Leviathan. In other words, it’s more complicated than that. [/quote]

Congress writes tax laws. And if you’re mad at the influence of special interests on Congress’ s independent responsibility to do so, that’s fine - but you’ll be surprised to learn that these special interests are looking to get taxes cut, or favorable loopholes. As in, less “theft”.

I realize that reference to “Leviathan” is your go-to move on subjects on which you are uninformed, but that isn’t my problem to fix.

[quote]polo77j wrote:

Actually take care of you or present the illusion and intention of taking care of you? And by “you” who exactly is that meant to represent? A lot of promises are made by politicians regarding “entitlements” and a lot of promises of the ambiguous “change” but it’s never quite clear exactly what is meant (until it’s staring you in the face of course).

My point is, it’s not necessarily which states take care of you permanently, but which ones give the promise of providing whatever it is you wish them to provide (entitlements, free this, free that, extending (re)distribution programs, etc)[/quote]

Huh?

Whatever Countingbeans meant when he wrote “the nanny state is just going to take care of you”?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I would like to take you Beans on a tor of Phx AZ underbelly , where you can bask in the luxury the poor live in:)
[/quote]

Yes, and you can come up here and I’ll show you the same bullshit.

Then, when you’re done with you youtube videos about chronic homeless in AZ, why don’t you post some of the squalor in about 160 other countries where the vast majority of populations live in conditions much worse than anything you’ve link thus far.

Your perspective, as always, sucks massive cocks. [/quote]

You suck massive cock and take it in the ass too :slight_smile: now that we got that out of the way .

Arizona is probably the hub for the homeless , especially in the winter . I have been to countries that were supposed to be inferior but they were not . America can hold her own when it comes to poverty
[/quote]

Makes me wonder how many of them are illegal aliens. They come across the border expecting to be taken care of the rest of their lives (and Obama is really trying hard to make that a reality) and suddenly they are impoverished much like they were in Mexico.

[/quote]

Maybe some are illegals but none are detectible . I work nights and drive by the rescue mission 3 times a night . I spends the night driving back and forth through the bad side of PHX . The reality of it is terrible . The last saddest thing I saw was a Black Dad taking care of his child on a Bus Stop bench. When i drove by again the child was sleeping on the side walk and the Dad fell a sleep sitting on the bench , I see a lot of Veterans , you can tell by clothes and gear , see alot of families . It is Real

[quote]florelius wrote:
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders the most of the current crop of candidates and it is perhaps a futile excercise to argue for Sanders on this forum, but fuck it I feel like Don Quixote today.

First let me try to ease your minds my socialistphobic brethren when it comes to Sanders’s socialist label. If you listen to what he says and his policy proposals, the man is much more of a Keynes, than a Marx. He is not calling for the expropriation of all private property over the means of production and the end of capitalism, but are rather proposing a more progressive tax system and more government spending within a capitalist framework. I know this ain’t glad tidings for conservatives, but it makes him more of a tax and spend liberal, than the second coming of Stalin. In a sense is his message kinda “reactionary” in so far that he is calling for a return to the “liberal consensus” of the 50’s. 60’s and 70’s.( Offcourse without segregration, the cold war etc ). One can say that his message in some way is the mirror image of the tea-party movement with its call’s for a return to the “golden days” of the founding of your country.

Secondly his main cause is anti-corruption rather than class-warfare. He rightly warns about the growing influence of money in the political sphere and how its influence are transforming your democratic republic into a plutocratic republic. Last time I checked it was the classical-liberalist’s who first championed democracy and republicanism over autocracy and monarchism. And on this issue he is not only talking the talk, but he also walks the walk. He has refused to take money from Super Pac’s and most of his contributions are from regular voters( average contribution is roughly 40$ ) and labor unions( btw union are not big money compared to huge corporations ). You might disagree with him on 99% of the issues, but thats more one can say of Hillary who also have voiced concern over the citizens united ruling while she at the same time is saturated in corporate money.

Thirdly he is dead right on income inequality. Now some will say this is pure class-warfare and pandering, but the reality is that the class-war is allready here and the working class( or middle-class and working family’s as Sanders says ) is loosing and have been for a long time( to paraprhase Warren Buffet ). Now his policy proposals to combat this is anti-etical to what most here believes, but atleast he have some proposals. Offcourse some of the GOP candidates have also given lip-service to this problem, but no real solutions. The fact is that the only solution to combating income inequality is taxing the rich more and increase spending directed at poor people. Now if you dont give a shit about income inequality, then you can keep on arguing for less taxes( or a more regressive tax system ) and less public spending directed against the poor and still be consistent. But to pretend to care, but offer no solutions is just disgusting.

Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician. Now this is probably what Countingbeans is calling “voting with your feelings” rather than your intellect and I agree that this kinds of factors should be at the bottom of the list for why you vote for someone. Still compared to especially Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Bernie comes off as an actual human, while they come off as trained dogs. I can add I think Jeb Bush comes off as a human too( So I am not 100% partisan, only 99,9% ).

I know I am not making any friends here for posting this, but one positive Sanders post in here will not end the world.

Btw: I hope Beans prediction is right, but I doubt it Bernie wins.

ps. I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in this race, but are watching from the outside and finds it fascinating.

[/quote]

Bernie Rocks - YouTube

[quote]pushharder wrote:
GWB should’ve PAID $120K to the veterans group in order to do the speech.

The more I think of this the more riled I get. Someone tell me why I shouldn’t be.[/quote]

The organization made a record amount of money that night. I believe the year before the event brought in about $1.4M and the night GWB spoke it brought in $2.5M (both are net figures iirc).

President Bush does a lot for veterans.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Its no suprise when I say I like Sanders the most of the current crop of candidates and it is perhaps a futile excercise to argue for Sanders on this forum, but fuck it I feel like Don Quixote today.

First let me try to ease your minds my socialistphobic brethren when it comes to Sanders’s socialist label. If you listen to what he says and his policy proposals, the man is much more of a Keynes, than a Marx. He is not calling for the expropriation of all private property over the means of production and the end of capitalism, but are rather proposing a more progressive tax system and more government spending within a capitalist framework. I know this ain’t glad tidings for conservatives, but it makes him more of a tax and spend liberal, than the second coming of Stalin. In a sense is his message kinda “reactionary” in so far that he is calling for a return to the “liberal consensus” of the 50’s. 60’s and 70’s.( Offcourse without segregration, the cold war etc ). One can say that his message in some way is the mirror image of the tea-party movement with its call’s for a return to the “golden days” of the founding of your country.

Secondly his main cause is anti-corruption rather than class-warfare. He rightly warns about the growing influence of money in the political sphere and how its influence are transforming your democratic republic into a plutocratic republic. Last time I checked it was the classical-liberalist’s who first championed democracy and republicanism over autocracy and monarchism. And on this issue he is not only talking the talk, but he also walks the walk. He has refused to take money from Super Pac’s and most of his contributions are from regular voters( average contribution is roughly 40$ ) and labor unions( btw union are not big money compared to huge corporations ). You might disagree with him on 99% of the issues, but thats more one can say of Hillary who also have voiced concern over the citizens united ruling while she at the same time is saturated in corporate money.

Thirdly he is dead right on income inequality. Now some will say this is pure class-warfare and pandering, but the reality is that the class-war is allready here and the working class( or middle-class and working family’s as Sanders says ) is loosing and have been for a long time( to paraprhase Warren Buffet ). Now his policy proposals to combat this is anti-etical to what most here believes, but atleast he have some proposals. Offcourse some of the GOP candidates have also given lip-service to this problem, but no real solutions. The fact is that the only solution to combating income inequality is taxing the rich more and increase spending directed at poor people. Now if you dont give a shit about income inequality, then you can keep on arguing for less taxes( or a more regressive tax system ) and less public spending directed against the poor and still be consistent. But to pretend to care, but offer no solutions is just disgusting.

Fourthly he seems more genuin and less coached than the typical politician. Now this is probably what Countingbeans is calling “voting with your feelings” rather than your intellect and I agree that this kinds of factors should be at the bottom of the list for why you vote for someone. Still compared to especially Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Bernie comes off as an actual human, while they come off as trained dogs. I can add I think Jeb Bush comes off as a human too( So I am not 100% partisan, only 99,9% ).

I know I am not making any friends here for posting this, but one positive Sanders post in here will not end the world.

Btw: I hope Beans prediction is right, but I doubt it Bernie wins.

ps. I am not an American citizen and cannot vote in this race, but are watching from the outside and finds it fascinating.

[/quote]

Bernie Rocks
[/quote]

Thanks for posting the video. A balding white haired 73 year old man…ah yes.

Oh how I wish that Bernie Saunders would wrestle the nomination away from Hillary. While I have no doubt that the GOP will defeat Hillary, if Bernie Saunders were the nominee it would be a real lock for the GOP.

GO BERNIE…and yes he rocks or whatever else one can say about him that will help him win the democratic nomination.

I might just go write him a check.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Maybe some are illegals but none are detectible . I work nights and drive by the rescue mission 3 times a night . I spends the night driving back and forth through the bad side of PHX . The reality of it is terrible . The last saddest thing I saw was a Black Dad taking care of his child on a Bus Stop bench. When i drove by again the child was sleeping on the side walk and the Dad fell a sleep sitting on the bench , I see a lot of Veterans , you can tell by clothes and gear , see alot of families . It is Real [/quote]

The illegal alien problem is real too. Just ask the man who lost his daughter to a gun shot fired by an illegal alien. And there is far more crime than just that one incident being perpetrated by illegals.

Don’t you ever ask yourself why it’s okay for Obama not to enforce such felonies?

Pretty despicable for a President to allow this to happen.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Maybe some are illegals but none are detectible . I work nights and drive by the rescue mission 3 times a night . I spends the night driving back and forth through the bad side of PHX . The reality of it is terrible . The last saddest thing I saw was a Black Dad taking care of his child on a Bus Stop bench. When i drove by again the child was sleeping on the side walk and the Dad fell a sleep sitting on the bench , I see a lot of Veterans , you can tell by clothes and gear , see alot of families . It is Real [/quote]

The illegal alien problem is real too. Just ask the man who lost his daughter to a gun shot fired by an illegal alien. And there is far more crime than just that one incident being perpetrated by illegals.

Don’t you ever ask yourself why it’s okay for Obama not to enforce such felonies?

Pretty despicable for a President to allow this to happen.
[/quote]

I agree Illegals are a problem, it has been a problem for me since the early 80s when Reagan delivered the death blow to the steel industry . I moved to AZ . In OH hanging drywall was paying $.08 AZ was Paying $.045 . Illegals were every where some one would yell immigration and all you would see is people running .

Big employers love cheap labor , supply and demand . It has nothing to do with Obama George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America" - YouTube

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It has nothing to do with Obama
[/quote]

Really? Nothing to do with Obama? ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?!!!

Like what fucking planet do you live on? Federal Judges are putting stays on OBAMA’S executive actions and calling them unconstitutional, and you have the balls to say our immigration problem has nothing to do with Obama?

I can understand a difference of opinion between progressives and conservatives, but don’t fucking lie, bro. Seriously, don’t fucking lie about undisputed facts.

Agree with AC, Obama is complicit in in skewing the scales to favor the supply side of cheap labor. The demand is always present, but we are not going to have much of a country if we import cheap supply to meet that demand.

Wages will not go up so long as we have an abundance of cheap workers willing to accept a shit wage.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Wages will not go up so long as we have an abundance of cheap workers willing to accept a shit wage.[/quote]

“but if you oppose immigration reform you’re a racist”

See…this is problem with any “discussion” about Immigration.

People take a side…accuse the OTHER side of taking extreme positions…then we get nowhere, with everyone engaging in pissing matches.

What the President has proposed is to delay the deportation of parents of children who are citizens or have green cards; as long as the parents have been in the country for more than five years and and meet other criteria. And these criteria are VERY specific and very stringent. Contrary to the rhetoric, the President is not opening the gates for rapist, killers and thieves.

In terms of “it has nothing to do with Obama”; immigration will involve ANY President.

I will let Pitt speak for himself; but I am sure he was stating that the current state of immigration is the sum total of policies of all Presidents (past and current) and Congress (past and current).

Mufasa