If the Whales had won, there wouldn't even Be a housing crisis--try the book!! (Advertisement)

A few good men. Senators who voted against NDAA (or abstained)


By Dan8267   Follow   Wed, 4 Jan 2012, 6:26pm   4,597 views   52 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

NAYs ---13

Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Moran (R-KS)

That's 6 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 independent voting in favor of Western Civilization. 1 Republican did not vote. The other 93 senators have no respect for your life, liberty, or rights.

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 13-52 of 52     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    13   11:33am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Thanks, uomo. So who should we vote? And why?

  2. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    14   11:34am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    Yes, but we want policies grounded in REALITY. Where is that from Ron Paul?

    So reality to you is the debt-financed fantasy where the losers and corrupt are rewarded and the savers are punished?

  3. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    15   11:38am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    So who should we vote?

    I am asking - Why vote?

    A sane person would vote if they knew they have their representation in the Government (republic is the representation of the public). Tell me honestly - do we have a Government that represents the public today?

    Can we ever have it if there is no campaign finance and lobbying reform?

    Therefore, I'd heed George Carlin's advice: 'F--k 'em, I don't vote'.

  4. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    16   11:39am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    So reality to you is the debt-financed fantasy where the losers and corrupt are rewarded and the savers are punished?

    No, if you have read my posts for quite some time, you'd have realized by now that I vehemently oppose today's system. But the way to reform it is not through dogmatism, it is through a practical approach of recognizing the problem.

    I don't have faith that this can happen in today's politics.

  5. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    17   11:40am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    I am asking - Why vote?

    I understand your point. It would be nice to hear the reasons why I should vote for the other candidates but many on this site seem to focus on bashing Ron Paul but never say who should we support.

  6. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,611 threads
    6,305 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA

    18   11:41am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    Ron Paul is a non-interventionist who doesn't want to rig the economy at the guise of making your life better. He simply wants to give you freedom.

    Unfortunately, he does not distinguish beween income from productive work, and income from siphoning off the wealth of those who actually do productive work (via land rents, interest, capital gains, dividends, and inheritance).

    Anonymousone says

    And to those spreading lies that Ron Paul didn't vote for HR 1540, here's the house record:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll375.xml#N

    Thanks for that! I was confusing the Senate and House votes earlier.

    Now I see that stripping our civil rights is indeed mostly a Republican idea, but the Democrats were still in favor of such treason by a slight majority.

    Votes for bill including permenent imprisonment without trial, yes no -> %yes:

    Republican 227 6 -> 97.4% against the bill of rights
    Democratic 95 90 -> 51.4% against the bill of rights

    So I really have to give Ron Paul credit for voting against his own party on the NDAA, and on SOPA.

    Anyway, I think it's marvelously entertaining watching the mainstream the Republican establishment convulse in horror at the thought of Ron Paul getting the nomination. That alone makes it worth registering as a Republican and voting to nominate him.

  7. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    19   11:43am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  
  8. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    20   11:44am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    It would be nice to hear the reasons why I should vote for the other candidates but many on this site seem to focus on bashing Ron Paul but never say who should we support.

    I can't give you any reasons to support anyone because IT DOESN'T MATTER what you do, when you can't have a say in calling the shots.

    Since you are a vehement supporter of Ron Paul (as evidenced by your numerous threads), you should recognize that there are practical issues that he doesn't address as well.

  9. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    21   11:45am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    It will be nice to discuss something like this:
    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

    I posted this link in the Link Submissions section, if you did not realize it already.

  10. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    22   11:46am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Anyway, I think it's marvelously entertaining watching the mainstream the Republican establishment convulse in horror at the thought of Ron Paul getting the nomination. That alone makes it worth registering as a Republican and voting to nominate him.

    +1

  11. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    23   11:46am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Anyway, I think it's marvelously entertaining watching the mainstream the Republican establishment convulse in horror at the thought of Ron Paul getting the nomination. That alone makes it worth registering as a Republican and voting to nominate him.

    Agreed. It is pretty f-ing unbelievable how unprincipled the mainstream Republicans are.

  12. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    24   11:49am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    Since you are a vehement supporter of Ron Paul (as evidenced by your numerous threads), you should recognize that there are practical issues that he doesn't address as well.

    Like I said many times, Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate and we may disagree with him on other issues. Isn't that reality? Is there a perfect candidate?

  13. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,611 threads
    6,305 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA

    25   11:50am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    All debt is not slavery. There's something called marginal productivity of debt.

    True, I'm talking about debt for consumption, especially mortgage debt.

    Debt for investing in productive capacity can potentially be very worthwhile. Say to purchase capital equipment that you know you can use profitably, where the profit is greater than the interest payment. That kind of debt is fine, IMHO.

    Even mortgage debt is possibly OK if the borrower pays less overall than he would renting the same place. I'm just begging people to actually do that calculation, and demanding that the government stop facilitating the self-entrapment of so many millions of people.

    Student loans have become a lot like housing. The debt can be worthwhile if the future income gains more than cover the interest. But student loan debt subsidies got into a vicious circle, where the increased financing just led to increased tuition, and blew right past any semblance of financial reason.

  14. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    26   11:52am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    I posted this link in the Link Submissions section, if you did not realize it already.

    Yes. I also posted it in the politics section.

    Here's another good one:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

  15. thunderlips11


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    114 threads
    3,411 comments
    Premium

    27   11:52am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    I say don't vote.

    "Well, if you don't choose between Twiddledum and Tweedledummer, you're helping bad things happen."

    How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

    My three things are: Reciprocal Trade, Civil Liberties, and the end of the Pax Americana.

    BOTH major parties' candidates are antithetical to all of my main concerns, as expressed by deed, whatever comes out of their mouths. Politicians are better judged by the former rather than the latter.

    I reject the Sixth Party System and the Culture War and won't be stampeded to vote over Wedge Issues. My issues are mostly guns and butter shit.

    The issue isn't Tradition vs. Tolerance, it's Neofeudalism.

    Neofeudalism with or without Gay Marriage is still neofeudalism.

    Vote no one.

  16. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    28   11:56am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    Like I said many times, Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate and we may disagree with him on other issues. Isn't that reality? Is there a perfect candidate?

    The issues that one can disagree might be sound enough to not vote for Ron Paul at all. That's what I'm trying to say.

  17. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    29   11:57am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Student loans have become a lot like housing. The debt can be worthwhile if the future income gains more than cover the interest. But student loan debt subsidies got into a vicious circle, where the increased financing just led to increased tuition, and blew right past any semblance of financial reason.

    Agree. Student Loans is a 1-trillion+ growing bubble that will blow up sometime in the future.

  18. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    30   11:58am Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thunderlips11 says

    How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

    Spot on.

  19. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    31   12:01pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    thunderlips11 says

    How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

    Spot on.

    If you truly believe that, what are you doing to convince the people not to vote? If there's any, what are the chances that you'll succeed? Is it based on reality?

  20. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    32   12:05pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    If you truly believe that, what are you doing to convince the people not to vote?

    LOL. I don't have the urge to convince anyone. Since you asked, I answered. But everyone has the right to make a choice. If people want to live in an illusion that they have a freedom of choice when it comes to politics, that is something they choose to do.

    Anonymousone says

    If there's any, what are the chances that you'll succeed? Is it based on reality?

    Since there's no effort involved, there's no expectation of success. The reasoning as to why one shouldn't vote is based in reality. Whether they choose to accept the reality or not is for them to make.

  21. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    33   12:07pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    LOL. I don't have the urge to convince anyone. Since you asked, I answered. But everyone has the right to make a choice.

    Good counter. Thanks. I guess reality is or can be subjective.

    Let me ask again those who plan to vote, who should we support and why?

  22. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    34   12:11pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    I agree. Ron Paul does not ever in any way question the right of the 1% to take more and more from the 99% via non-productive ownership of everything, forever.

    True. Ron Paul is the quintessence of the Libertarian Party. He wants to get as close to anarchy -- and I mean the absence of government, not chaos and violence -- as physically possible. This, of course, allows the powerful to become more powerful and the rich to become more rich.

    That is a fundamental flaw in the Libertarian philosophy. However, I don't see how Ron Paul as president could do much to further inequality. The social programs and federal agencies he wants to cut, he won't be able to. That's up to Congress. At worst, he would veto new legislation relating to social safety net programs. However, given the greater threat of unrestricted government power and no accountability, this doesn't even come close to being important.

    Patrick says

    cutting Social Security and Medicare to zero

    Those are precisely the programs that no president could cut even if he wanted to. Even if Ron Paul had the support of Congress, he couldn't cut those programs. And Congress sure isn't going to support cutting programs that are highly popular to the voters. Yes, it's valid to argue that because of his Libertarian views, Ron Paul would be an ineffective president, like Jimmy Carter was. But given the recent passage of the NDAA, Paul's the only chance we have to restrict executive power short of a violent revolution.

    Patrick says

    BUT he is clearly against imprisonment of US citizens forever without trial (NDAA) and extra-judicial censorship of the internet without appeal (SOPA). Is there any other candidate that would respect our civil rights?

    Without civil rights, we can never fix anything else.

    Yep, and that's what makes Ron Paul worth electing even with his crazy ideas.

    uomo_senza_nome says

    I think that's because he's stuck in the ideology of free market capitalism when the reality is that such a system is a total Randian myth. Can never exist in real life.

    Close, but I don't think it's so much a about free-market religion with Libertarians. I think it's because they simply refuse to acknowledge two important things: the concept of public property and the field of game theory. If you took the core Libertarian philosophy and added these two concepts, it would be great. Granted, game theory is incompatible with the religion of free-markets.

    Anonymousone says

    Ron Paul is the champion of liberty. Even the ACLU gives him higher marks than Obama.

    Why would Obama get good marks on civil rights. He's awful.

    Anonymousone says

    Now let me hear why I should vote for the others.

    And that's what it really comes down to. I don't expect Ron Paul to be a great president, but given the utter destruction of rights over the past decade, he's the only candidate that's a defense against the greatest threat to America ever: our own government.

    uomo_senza_nome says

    Without a credit system, nobody can plan for their future.

    I wouldn't go that far. Credit, when used properly, makes planning for the future much easier, but it would still be possible with just savings as long as savings could hold their value.

    Anonymousone says

    Thank,s Uomo. So who should we vote? And why?

    Ron Paul is my first choice, but if it comes down to between Romney and Obama, I'll go Romney. And that's not something I'd thought I'd say a month ago, but the passage of the NDAA has convinced me that Obama is even more evil than Bush -- something else I thought I'd never say.

    I suppose the one silver lining is that if the NDAA causes Obama to lose the election, and clearly so, it might just send a message to all the politicians in Washington.

    Anonymousone says

    uomo_senza_nome says

    Yes, but we want policies grounded in REALITY. Where is that from Ron Paul?

    So reality to you is the debt-financed fantasy?

    No, uomo_senza_nome, like me, is an Austrian Economics advocate. Ron Paul is as well. What uomo_senza_nome means is that Ron Paul is an idealist who sticks to black-and-white principles including an unquestioning faith in unregulated markets and the invisible hand. However, any system can be gamed, so there must be ways to prevent the few from taking advantage of the many by rigging the system and acting like parasites. Ron Paul believes incorrectly that if you stick by the simple principles of free markets and no government, the system will work automagically to purge itself of parasites. Those of us who study game theory and complex systems know this to be a fallacy.

    We agree with many of Ron Paul's principles, but we apply them in practical ways that take into account how injustices and parasitic behavior creep into a system and form their own niches. In other words, a principle drives goals, but is not the algorithm for implementing a system.

  23. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    35   12:17pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Now let me hear why I should vote for the others.

    And that's what it really comes down to.

    +1

    Unfortunately, many if not most of Ron Paul supporters will not support the other candidates and they are growing fast. Ron Paul is the only candidate that are attracting a lot of the young and independent voters. Even some democrats are now for Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul is now surging in NH as well:

    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/05/ron-paul-surging-in-new-hampshire-following-top-tier-finish-in-iowa

    If we can at least agree on this, our only chance is to stick with Ron Paul and help him gain more support. What do you think?

  24. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    36   12:44pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    Unfortunately, many if not most of Ron Paul supporters will not support the other candidates and they are growing fast

    Support is simply voting for the lesser of the two evils. Having signed the NDAA, I've switch from reluctantly siding with Obama over all non-Paul candidates to reluctantly siding with any candidate against Obama.

    I suspect that signing the NDAA is going to convince a lot of soulless flip-flopping whores, er independents, like me to go from Obama to any Republican.

    Anonymousone says

    What do you think?

    We're fucked.

    I guess the good thing is that Ron Paul is closest to getting nominated as he has ever come in his life. I've been quite surprised that he's steadily holding the second place and not losing support. He's been consistently close to first place.

    The question is whether the Romney haters will cave into Romney or go for Ron Paul. I still think that Ron Paul has less than a 50% chance of getting the Republican nomination.

    However, I do think that out of all Republican candidates, Ron Paul stands the best chance in the general election. Die hard party members will always vote for their party, but the flip-floppers and centrist voters are more likely to vote for Ron Paul than the other Republicans. I can even see both The Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party protesters voting for Paul. I don't see OWS voting for Romney.

  25. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    37   12:52pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    I can even see both The Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party protesters voting for Paul. I don't see OWS voting for Romney.

    Fanned.

  26. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    38   12:54pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    And let's not forget that the candidates have yet to declare who will be their running mate. This can make or break them too.

  27. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    39   1:38pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I can see Romney partnering up with just about any other candidate. I can't see Paul choosing any of the other candidates as a running mate. I think he would pick someone who didn't run in the primaries.

    Now, I don't think this is going to happen, but I could imagine Ron Paul picking Peter Schiff as a running mate. The have very similar views. I don't think it would be a good choice for bolstering support though.

    As a side note, I was pretty shocked that Christine O'Donnell threw her support to Romney. I would have thought she'd go with a more evangelical choice.

  28. HousingWatcher


    Follow
    Befriend
    285 threads
    1,760 comments

    40   1:39pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Anonymousone says

    And let's not forget that the candidates have yet to declare who will be their running mate. This can make or break them too.

    Candidates only delcare who their running mate is IF they get the nomination.

  29. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    41   1:51pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    HousingWatcher says

    Anonymousone says

    And let's not forget that the candidates have yet to declare who will be their running mate. This can make or break them too.

    Candidates only delcare who their running mate is IF they get the nomination.

    Yes, but Anonymousone is implying that if Ron Paul is nominated and chooses a strategic running mate, all the Republican voters who opposed him with side with him in the general election.

    It's a big IF that Paul will be nominated, and the question remains who could he choose to unit the Republican base and still appeal to people like OWS and independents. I don't know of anyone off the top of my head.

  30. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    42   1:51pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    HousingWatcher says

    Candidates only delcare who their running mate is IF they get the nomination.

    Wow! Another intelligent remark from AnonymousoneWatcher. Did I say the candidates should declare their VPs' now?

  31. Anonymousone


    Follow
    Befriend (2)
    511 threads
    521 comments
    Anonymousone's website

    43   1:53pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    I can see Romney partnering up with just about any other candidate. I can't see Paul choosing any of the other candidates as a running mate. I think he would pick someone who didn't run in the primaries.

    Thanks, Dan. Good point.

  32. Vicente


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    247 threads
    5,360 comments
    Davis, CA

    44   3:06pm Thu 5 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    all the Republican voters who opposed him with side with him in the general election.

    You need not worry your pretty head over this.

    "Republican voters" will vote for whoever has an R next to their name. Has there ever been an election either R or D where there were meaningful defections? Even Nader didn't peel off many Democrat voters.

    The vast middle who is not particularly loyalist, will be an unknown until the votes are counted.

  33. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    45   7:36am Fri 6 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Vicente says

    "Republican voters" will vote for whoever has an R next to their name. Has there ever been an election either R or D where there were meaningful defections?

    Actually, I think that who gets the nomination can have an effect. It's true that a registered Republican is almost certainly not going to vote for a Democrat and vice-versa. However, if Romney gets nominated, the anti-Romney vote might just stay home, a sort of "no confidence" vote. This could be enough to re-elect Obama.

    Similarly, I think a lot of people who would vote for Ron Paul will stay home if Romney gets the nomination.

    What I don't know is if the Romney supporters would stay home if Paul got nominated. I think they would still vote out of sheer hatred for Obama, but I'm not sure.

    Also, Ron Paul supporters tend to be fanatical, just look at Anonymousone, and as such would go to voting booth even in dire weather. That could make a difference in this election.

    Remember, Obama barely got a majority of the popular vote last time. The electoral college made it look like a landslide, but it was very close. And that was when he went against McCain, who was promising to be the third term of Bush, the most unpopular president ever.

  34. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    46   12:11pm Fri 6 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thunderlips11 says

    I say don't vote.

    "Well, if you don't choose between Twiddledum and Tweedledummer, you're helping bad things happen."

    How so? By forcing myself to choose between two shitty options, aren't I giving my consent to Bullshit? It's not like I'll be getting something I really care about while making concessions on other things.

    Although one can make an argument that the optimal solution to Wolf's Dilemma in US presidential elections is to vote for the lesser of the two evils, thunderlips11 is right to state that not voting is possibly a better solution in that it is a "vote of no confidence" in any of the candidates. Ideally, we'd have that as a ballot option and if no confidence is chosen, no one gets to be president. At least that would give us a way to incentivize the two parties.

    However, I would encourage people to consider the possibility that voting for a third-party candidate that has no chance of winning is a better way to vote no confidence.

    Patrick says

    Unfortunately, he does not distinguish beween income from productive work, and income from siphoning off the wealth of those who actually do productive work (via land rents, interest, capital gains, dividends, and inheritance).

    Yeah, that's the problem with all economists and politicians. Income can be attributes to four kinds of sources:

    1. Production - Shouldn't be taxed at all.

    2. Investment - Trading off instantaneous gratification for long term prosperity by increasing other people's long-term production. Should be taxed moderately.

    3. Necessary overhead - Produces nothing, but is still needed. Should be taxed lightly if at all.

    4. Zero-sum games - Speculation, exploiting workers, fraudulent financing, etc. Should not exist. Government should try to structure the rules of the game so that these activities cannot profit. While doing that, government should claw back or tax as much of these false profits as possible.

  35. uomo_senza_nome


    Follow
    Befriend (13)
    787 threads
    1,542 comments

    47   12:36pm Fri 6 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Dan8267 says

    Yeah, that's the problem with all economists

    ECONOMICS is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine—the special pleading of selfish interests. - Henry Hazlitt.

    The full book (an excellent Austrian Economics primer): http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

  36. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    48   1:32pm Fri 6 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    the special pleading of selfish interests.

    Yep, that's exactly the problem. Same problem in religion, too.

    It's funny. No matter how obvious something is, the first time it is said out loud, it sounds like a profound revelation. We all were saying this in our heads. Sometimes even the obvious needs to be stated so as to denounce all the outright lies.

  37. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    49   1:35pm Fri 6 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    uomo_senza_nome says

    The full book (an excellent Austrian Economics primer): http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

    Damn, 234 pages. There goes my weekend. Looks like a good read from the TOC though.

  38. klarek


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    1 threads
    1,217 comments

    50   11:36pm Thu 26 Jan 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Ron Paul does not ever in any way question the right of the 1% to take more and more from the 99% via non-productive ownership of everything, forever.

    Because he has principles, or that history show what happens when you give unconstitutional power to agencies and make them arbiters of financial and personal rights. Not too hard to see where he's coming from right there.

    Are you really disappointed that someone like Paul wouldn't drop his principles because of on moral outrage over Wall St. pick-pockets, that he won't jump on the "solutions-now" bandwagon of righteousness? Think about it for a second, and be more cynical:

    Who has the MOST progressive income tax system on the planet?
    U.S.

    Who has the HIGHEST economic inequality among 1st world countries?
    U.S.

    Whose paws are all over our tax provisions and regulations?
    Lobbyists.

    Who dodges our regulations, and uses them as barriers of entry to eliminate the competition?
    Lobbyists.

    Who would influence your utopian wealth-management agency that determines which companies/jobs are 1%-ers and remove them from existence?
    Lobbyists.

    You know the scam that realtors run and the influence they wield. It's no coincidence that govt efforts to "help people" in the housing market has created a reason and opportunity for these NAR scumbags to bend the rules in their favor.

  39. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    51   4:38pm Thu 23 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Cloud says

    Hey Dan, ObamaSachs just pulled up an "ANCHOR" on New Years Eve....

    Not surprising. I am actually Barack Obama. Occasionally, I criticize myself just to throw people off the track.

    I surf patrick.net from the Oval Office when I'm bored with work. Some people play Minesweeper, I pretend to be a software developer from south Florida.

  40. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    944 threads
    11,110 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    52   4:41pm Thu 23 Feb 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Cloud says

    "The founding fathers are no saints. They had plenty of problems and they screwed up plenty of times when setting up the country including doing things they knew were wrong and would cause major problems in the future like allowing slavery.

    We should definitely know what the founding fathers did and understand why they did it. We should read their papers and analyze them. But we should not accept the founding fathers' words as dogma. They were a hypothesis to be tested. And the test has been partly a success, but also greatly a failure.

    The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors."

    I stand by those statements, Cloud, you idiot. But I find no reason to respond to your obsessive trolling. Grow up and act like an adult if you want people to have a conversation with you. Until then, you sit at the kiddie table.

« First     « Previous comments    

Dan8267 is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 166 milliseconds to create.