Somewhere In Arizona, Kevin Baker's Head Just Exploded
Narrative=Still Not Dead
9 comments:
1
said...
Perhaps you could add some depth to this minimalist post. Assuming you are one of the "99%" (and statistically, we probably all are), what are your 'demands', so to speak?
How many bankers have been thrown in jail? Did either the Bush or the Obama admin throw ANY in jail?
...billionaires weasling out of taxes...
Are they cheating on their taxes? How many have been prosecuted? Are they taking advantage of legal loopholes? Did either the Bush or Obama admin close any of those loopholes?
...corporate lobbyists...
Have either the Bush or Obama admin reduced the role of lobbyists in the US political system?
I don't understand why you seem to think Obama is any different than Bush. Or Newt. Or Kerry. Or Romney. Or ______.
So back to the original question. Which candidate do you see changing any of the above failures of the current political system?
How would your candidate change them?
Personally, based on the candidates actual record - as opposed to their rhetoric - I think all the Republicans should be voting for Obama the 1%'r, silent on gun control, Wall Street partner, and Warmonger; and all the Democrats should be voting for the 1%'r, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-government health care Romney.
Rather than your focus on the non-existant demands of the '99%', why not focus on the police crackdown on their 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble? If the same extra-constitutional militarized police exuberance was marshalled against peaceful 2nd Amendment protesters, Idaho compounds would be stacking ammo and constructing Mad Max dune buggies.
The president (along with Congress) passed the credit card protection act, formed the CFPB, and passed Dodd-Frank. All of these were opposed by the GOP. Of course, this is just a start and you are correct in pointing out that both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed at throwing people in jail.
Regarding taxes, the president and the Democrats in Congress are trying to close loopholes and reform the tax code so wealthier people don't take advantage of it but they are being blocked by Republicans.
This is why I support the president and most Democrats over the Republicans. Their actual record matches their record although I will agree that it's not perfect. Compared to the GOP, though, it's several steps in the right direction.
I like your comparison/dichotomy paragraph. I've often wondered why the Democrats aren't in favor of a government law outlawing abortion. Ideologically, it's more in line with their views, right? The government preventing people from doing bad things dealio.
I disagree, however, that the 99 percent have non-existent demands. Their chief one is to eliminate the influence of money in politics and make it truly for the people. The marine depicted here is shucking the libertarian philosophy of every man for himself and saying that we all have to help each other to make a better society. How each of us do that is our decision.
New laws with no enforcement will be meaningless. Wall Street sided with the Dems for the Dodd-Frank changes, and a quick glance at an American Express stock chart will show that they weren't hurt by the new regs at all.
The tax code is invented by Congress. Every loophole is there because Congress wanted it there. Perhaps a flat tax is the answer?
As for eliminating money in politics, how does 'helping each other' make that happen?
Perhaps Occupy should focus on term limits. Which corporations will spend the billions to buy a vote that will only last a few years? With the 99.999 incumbent win rate, a politician stays bought for a long time. I'd call that a good investment if my goal was to circumvent the good of the people for my own enrichment.
That's true, new laws with no enforcement will be meaningless. I've always said that the day that the Feds throw one guy from Wall Street in federal pound me in the ass prison is they day that this is all over. Yet we did need a new law to regulate derivatives and many of the new products that caused the collapse of 2008 so it needed to be done anyway.
A flat tax is something that should be reexamined but it will likely never happen because the GOP establishment benefits too much from a progressive tax as we have seen with the release of Mitt's tax returns. Take note that any time anyone brings it up, they usually lose very quickly in whatever race they are in at the time (Forbes, Perry, etc)
I think if more people helped each other at the local level and rejected Randian enlightened self interest, then there wouldn't be a need for as much government. If there's not a need for that much government, then there's not much point in pumping money into politics. Sit back and think about it for a minute...how many different ways could you see helping people? The sky's the limit, really.
Yes, Occupy (and all of us) should focus on term limits. That would solve many problems. The president has two...so should each Senator. Reps should have 6. That would go a long way, as well, to getting money out of politics.
9 comments:
Perhaps you could add some depth to this minimalist post. Assuming you are one of the "99%" (and statistically, we probably all are), what are your 'demands', so to speak?
What is it "you" hope to accomplish?
It's not my demands, it's this marine's demands. I think his words are pretty clear and specific. What are you having trouble understanding exactly?
Ah. So you don't agree with him. I see... my misunderstanding.
(yawn) Game playing. You know where to find me if you want to have a substantive discussion on his statement. Let's hear your comments.
Well, let's see. The print is rather small...
...American banks swindling customers...
How many bankers have been thrown in jail? Did either the Bush or the Obama admin throw ANY in jail?
...billionaires weasling out of taxes...
Are they cheating on their taxes? How many have been prosecuted? Are they taking advantage of legal loopholes? Did either the Bush or Obama admin close any of those loopholes?
...corporate lobbyists...
Have either the Bush or Obama admin reduced the role of lobbyists in the US political system?
I don't understand why you seem to think Obama is any different than Bush. Or Newt. Or Kerry. Or Romney. Or ______.
So back to the original question. Which candidate do you see changing any of the above failures of the current political system?
How would your candidate change them?
Personally, based on the candidates actual record - as opposed to their rhetoric - I think all the Republicans should be voting for Obama the 1%'r, silent on gun control, Wall Street partner, and Warmonger; and all the Democrats should be voting for the 1%'r, pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-government health care Romney.
Rather than your focus on the non-existant demands of the '99%', why not focus on the police crackdown on their 1st Amendment right to peaceably assemble?
If the same extra-constitutional militarized police exuberance was marshalled against peaceful 2nd Amendment protesters, Idaho compounds would be stacking ammo and constructing Mad Max dune buggies.
The president (along with Congress) passed the credit card protection act, formed the CFPB, and passed Dodd-Frank. All of these were opposed by the GOP. Of course, this is just a start and you are correct in pointing out that both the Democrats and the Republicans have failed at throwing people in jail.
Regarding taxes, the president and the Democrats in Congress are trying to close loopholes and reform the tax code so wealthier people don't take advantage of it but they are being blocked by Republicans.
This is why I support the president and most Democrats over the Republicans. Their actual record matches their record although I will agree that it's not perfect. Compared to the GOP, though, it's several steps in the right direction.
I like your comparison/dichotomy paragraph. I've often wondered why the Democrats aren't in favor of a government law outlawing abortion. Ideologically, it's more in line with their views, right? The government preventing people from doing bad things dealio.
I disagree, however, that the 99 percent have non-existent demands. Their chief one is to eliminate the influence of money in politics and make it truly for the people. The marine depicted here is shucking the libertarian philosophy of every man for himself and saying that we all have to help each other to make a better society. How each of us do that is our decision.
New laws with no enforcement will be meaningless. Wall Street sided with the Dems for the Dodd-Frank changes, and a quick glance at an American Express stock chart will show that they weren't hurt by the new regs at all.
The tax code is invented by Congress. Every loophole is there because Congress wanted it there. Perhaps a flat tax is the answer?
As for eliminating money in politics, how does 'helping each other' make that happen?
Perhaps Occupy should focus on term limits. Which corporations will spend the billions to buy a vote that will only last a few years? With the 99.999 incumbent win rate, a politician stays bought for a long time. I'd call that a good investment if my goal was to circumvent the good of the people for my own enrichment.
That's true, new laws with no enforcement will be meaningless. I've always said that the day that the Feds throw one guy from Wall Street in federal pound me in the ass prison is they day that this is all over. Yet we did need a new law to regulate derivatives and many of the new products that caused the collapse of 2008 so it needed to be done anyway.
A flat tax is something that should be reexamined but it will likely never happen because the GOP establishment benefits too much from a progressive tax as we have seen with the release of Mitt's tax returns. Take note that any time anyone brings it up, they usually lose very quickly in whatever race they are in at the time (Forbes, Perry, etc)
I think if more people helped each other at the local level and rejected Randian enlightened self interest, then there wouldn't be a need for as much government. If there's not a need for that much government, then there's not much point in pumping money into politics. Sit back and think about it for a minute...how many different ways could you see helping people? The sky's the limit, really.
Yes, Occupy (and all of us) should focus on term limits. That would solve many problems. The president has two...so should each Senator. Reps should have 6. That would go a long way, as well, to getting money out of politics.
That would go a long way, as well, to getting money out of politics.
It hasn't in Calif at the state level where we do have term limits. Still get much the same craptastic people.
Post a Comment