Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger has urged the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, warning that it would have disastrous consequences for the long term stability of Europe.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Henry Kissinger is as useless today as he was in the 1970s.

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2022-05-24 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Related...

Macron hits the nail on the head that if you want peace, don't humiliate Russia (April 24, 2022)
inf.news

...In the face of the constantly conflicting situation in Russia and Ukraine, Macron pointedly pointed out that if we want to achieve peace, we must not humiliate Russia. Macron said in an interview with the media about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine that the two sides will eventually end the conflict through negotiations. If external forces intervene in it, then there will be no peace and the war will continue.

Macron stressed that if we want to build a peaceful world, we will have to sit down and negotiate with Ukraine and Russia, and Ukraine and Russia will decide when to discuss and negotiate when to end the conflict. But if the outside world denies, or excludes, or even humiliates Russia, there will be no peace....


One could argue that Russia has already humiliated itself, but that may be more of an aside at this point...


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-24 11:04 AM | Reply

"proper place of Russia in the European balance of power."???

Russia's place in the balance has never involved using social media and worse to **** over elections world wide and putting loonies in charge of nukes.

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2022-05-24 11:41 AM | Reply

From the original cited article...

..."Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante. Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself," he said....

... Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself ...

Who am I to disagree with Dr Kissinger, but, wow.

Russia has invaded Ukraine, not once, but twice, and Dr Kissinger wants Ukraine to just cede the annexed lands to Russia so that the war would not be against Russia itself?

Is Dr Kissinger so focused upon stopping the war that he would reward Russia for starting it by giving Russia the land it has taken during the war?


#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-24 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Kissinger: [Allies] must stop short of defeating [Third Reich].

Kissinger: [U.S.] must stop short of defeating [British Empire].

etc.

#5 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 12:16 PM | Reply

This is the man Hillary Clinton calls a mentor and touts his support of her campaign.

When it came to Soviet Jews, Kissinger said their extermination would be no concern to the American government.

"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

www.huffpost.com

#6 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-24 12:45 PM | Reply

Kissinger is a turd. He's been wrong about many things.

This isn't one of them.

#7 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2022-05-24 12:57 PM | Reply

@#6 ... This is the man Hillary Clinton calls a mentor and touts his support of her campaign. ...

Regardless, I still hold that Ms Clinton's administration would have been better, and far less criminal, than the Trump administration was.


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-24 12:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#8

LMAO Trump brought the closet jew haters out in the light.

#9 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-24 01:16 PM | Reply

You open a basement window?

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-24 01:25 PM | Reply

@#9 ... LMAO ...

What did I say that was funny?

... the closet jew haters out in the light ...

Huh? Can you explain?

thx.


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-24 01:33 PM | Reply

Can you explain?

Unfortunately, he won't be able to.

Trolls are only good at one thing.

Being trolls.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-24 01:55 PM | Reply

@#9 ... LMAO ...
What did I say that was funny?
... the closet jew haters out in the light ...
Huh? Can you explain?
thx.

#11 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-05-24 01:33 PM

Sure I can explain, for yo and the dipschitt in #12

If you voted for Hillary for President, you need to reconcile the fact that her (personally proclaimed) mentor is fine with genocide - even by means of the gas chamber. Then you vomited some stupid ---- about how "Trump bad" which I can't see how that glosses over the fact that your girl is indeed an anti-Jewish sympathizer.

Hopefully that took care of your explanation. I dumbed it down just for you and the dipschitt in #12.

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-24 02:07 PM | Reply

@#13 ... Hopefully that took care of your explanation. ...

Let's see...

... If you voted for Hillary for President, you need to reconcile the fact that her (personally proclaimed) mentor is fine with genocide ...

I had a few issues with Ms Clinton and her 2016 campaign against fmr Pres Trump. Unfortunately for your comment, I am not a one-issue voter. I look at the overall candidate and how the candidate acts and speaks.

... Then you vomited some stupid ---- about how "Trump bad" ...

The Trump admin did have more than usual number of criminals in it. Interesting all your comment can seem to do is attack it, and not gainsay it. Additionally, your comment to me (#9) initially mentioned fmr Pres Trump, I was not the one who first invoked his name. ;)

... which I can't see how that glosses over the fact that your girl is indeed an anti-Jewish sympathizer. ...

That's quite the unsubstantiated leap there.

If Ms Clinton had surrounded herself with what you call, "anti-Jewish sympathizers" then you might have more to stand on with your assertions.


... I dumbed it down just for you ...

Actually, that's the typical level of intelligence that I see in most (if not all) of your comments.


#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-24 02:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump saying there are "very fine people on both sides" about people chanting "Jews will not replace us!" in Charlottesville, is antisemitic.

But sure, Hillary Clinton blah blah blah ...

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-24 02:56 PM | Reply

Whatever that War Criminal says, I'm just going to assume the opposite is the better path.

#16 | Posted by morris at 2022-05-24 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Ms Clinton had surrounded herself with what you call, "anti-Jewish sympathizers" then you might have more to stand on with your assertions.

#14 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-05-24 02:42 PM | REPLY

Actually when asked who her mentors she listed a couple that raised the brow of a lot of democrats

one was Kissinger - well, you know what he's about and the second was Margaret Sanger. You may want to look that one up.

I'll leave you alone.... talk amongst yourselves.

#17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-05-24 03:43 PM | Reply

Henry Kissinger has no shame.

#18 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2022-05-24 03:46 PM | Reply

@#17 ... the second was Margaret Sanger. You may want to look that one up. ...

OK...

Margaret Sanger
en.wikipedia.org

...In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic to be staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem which had an all African-American advisory council,[13] where African-American staff were later added.[14]

In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States.

From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

She died in 1966 and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.[4]...



#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-24 04:07 PM | Reply

Ahhh Hillary's mentor ehhhhhhhhhh??

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-24 04:10 PM | Reply

Lessee, whatta they call Guilt by Association?

Oh, yeah, a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Of course, the people in who's heads she lives need to let her out for a walk at every slim opportunity.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-24 04:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So Corky is bearing false witness again. Quite typical if you ask me.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-24 04:26 PM | Reply

Oh no, Hillary said something stupid. We better hand over SCOTUS to the Republicans for the next generation or two. That'll teach her!

#23 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Oh no, Hillary said something stupid. We better hand over SCOTUS to the Republicans for the next generation or two. That'll teach her!

POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2022-05-24 04:31 PM | REPLY

More emotional vomit I see. Not surprising in the least.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-24 04:35 PM | Reply

- bearing false witness again

In what way, specifically, Dr. Laura?

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-24 04:36 PM | Reply

Kissinger is a spy, at least double agent. His innovation was to get paid by the people he was spying on.

#26 | Posted by bored at 2022-05-24 04:41 PM | Reply

In what way, specifically, Dr. Laura?

POSTED BY CORKY AT 2022-05-24 04:36 PM | REPLY

You said guilt by association. She said several times that she relied upon Henry Kissinger. That's Not guilt by association.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-24 04:46 PM | Reply

#27

rofl... that is exactly guilt by association; they were at one time associates, no matter whether she said it or not.

You are spreading the blame for his actions to her.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-24 04:51 PM | Reply

> Oh no, Hillary said something stupid. We better hand over SCOTUS to the Republicans for the next generation or two. That'll teach her! POSTED BY CENSORED

More emotional vomit I see. Not surprising in the least. #24 | Posted by LauraMohr

Why is that emotional or vomit. Isn't that factually what happened?

#29 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 04:59 PM | Reply

Ahhh Hillary's mentor ehhhhhhhhhh??

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-24 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lessee, whatta they call Guilt by Association?

#21 | Posted by Corky

No it's called yet another example of hillary's lousy judgement and defaulting to the elites status quo. Which is why america rejected her twice.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 05:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#30

lol.... some people will be having Hillary Hallucinations the rest of their lives.

Primary voters rejected Bernie, in a landslide, and some people will never get over that.

Hell, they are certain he would have beaten Trump. Which is very imaginative.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-24 06:13 PM | Reply

I always get a kick out of the Bernie Bros who think that the Jewish, atheist, socialist stood a chance in the general election. Kamala, the Black woman who doesn't have any kids, has about the same chance of getting elected.

#32 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 06:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hell, they are certain he would have beaten Trump. Which is very imaginative.

#31 | Posted by Corky

Not when you look at the success of fetterman in a swing state. People want populist democrats. Not kissinger loving sellouts.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I always get a kick out of the Bernie Bros who think that the Jewish, atheist, socialist stood a chance in the general election. Kamala, the Black woman who doesn't have any kids, has about the same chance of getting elected.

#32 | Posted by censored

Dems nominated the only person in the country who COULDNT beat trump, because it was "her turn".

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dems nominated the only person in the country who COULDNT beat trump, because it was "her turn". #34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Agreed that she felt that it was her turn. Would have alienated too may women if she wasn't the nominee, unfortunately.

As far as "the only person who couldn't beat Trump," Trump beat plenty of folks in the Repub primaries, and he wasn't even a real Republican. In fact, he almost beat Biden in 2020, losing the presidency by 90,000 votes. Remarkably, that was almost identical to the number of votes that cost Hillary the election in 2016.

We're a divided and stupid nation. No reason to lay all that blame at Hillary's feet.

As long as progressives decide the throw away their votes because the compromise candidate isn't their cup of tea, history will repeat.

It's funny to me, as Greens have thrown the election to Republicans twice in four elections and have learned nothing from it. Meanwhile, the right cements their grasp on power with a SCOTUS that will strike down any law that would restore fairness to our elections. In fact, Clarence and his wife have made it clear how they're going to steal the election in 2024. But sure, let's blame Hillary, not the voters who facilitated the rise of Dubbya and Trump and their SCOTUS.

#35 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 07:01 PM | Reply

Is it time to ship him off to The Hague for trial yet?

#36 | Posted by DarkVader at 2022-05-24 07:29 PM | Reply

Agreed that she felt that it was her turn. Would have alienated too may women if she wasn't the nominee, unfortunately.

#35 | Posted by censored a

Sure all those women would have stayed home and refused to vote against the admitted ----- grabber if hillary weren't the nominee. Sure.

What facilitated the rise of dubya was the clintons. For being corporate sellouts and a sexual predator.

What facilitated the rise of trump was obama. For being a corporate sellout who protected the bankers who wrecked the economy instead of prosecuting them and proving that dems fight for the working class.

What enabled the election of trump was hillary, the worst possible sellout iraq voting dem they could have chosen.

See the pattern? Every time dems nominate a corporate sellout republicans win. If it weren't for a once in a century pandemic in an election year, trump would still be president.

In 2024 dems will offer up another corporate sellout, and repubs will win.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 08:05 PM | Reply

Sure all those women would have stayed home and refused to vote against the admitted ----- grabber if hillary weren't the nominee. Sure.

Why not? If you can be petty enough to stay at home, so can they.

Every time dems nominate a corporate sellout republicans win. If it weren't for a once in a century pandemic in an election year, trump would still be president.In 2024 dems will offer up another corporate sellout, and repubs will win. #37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I guess we'll have to wait until the Dems nominate Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, or that Jewish atheist socialist you like to see if that works. Cause there's nothing that excites voters to elect a Dem like hearing about a 90% top marginal tax rate.

As I said, we are a stupid people. I guess some of us are dumb enough to think that no loaf is better than half a loaf. Enjoy your no loaf two years.

#38 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 08:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What facilitated the rise of trump was obama. For being a corporate sellout who protected the bankers who wrecked the economy instead of prosecuting them and proving that dems fight for the working class."

You voted for Trump based on those reasons?
LOL

What facilitated the rise of trump was obama. For being Black.

FTFY.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-24 08:35 PM | Reply

"Every time dems nominate a corporate sellout republicans win."

Then why did Clinton and Obama win twice, but Carter only won once?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-24 08:37 PM | Reply

I guess we'll have to wait until the Dems nominate Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, or that Jewish atheist socialist you like to see if that works. Cause there's nothing that excites voters to elect a Dem like hearing about a 90% top marginal tax rate.

As I said, we are a stupid people. I guess some of us are dumb enough to think that no loaf is better than half a loaf. Enjoy your no loaf two years.

#38 | Posted by censored

Where's the half loaf? We elected moderate dems and what have they done? Some new roads and bridges that the fascists will get to put their names on when they take back power.

Did they defend democracy and stop repubs from rigging elections? Nope.
Did they fix the supreme court to make it represent the country? Nope.
Gun control? Nope.
Police reform? Nope.
Did they even prosecute the fascists who tried to overthrow the government, which would require ZERO republican votes? Nope.

All they did is put a 2 year pause on fascism and take power where massive inflation was going to be blamed on whoever was in office. Did they punish the price gougers ripping off the american people under the guise of inflation? Nope. Did they stop corporations of foreign citizens from buying up all our homes, sight unseen? Nope.

Ooo but the new press secretary is female AND black AND gay! And dems act like that's going to win them a single vote.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What facilitated the rise of trump was obama. For being Black.

FTFY.

#39 | Posted by snoofy

That's every corporate dem's excuse.

It wasn't trump's racism that got him elected. It was his populism. Otherwise, there wouldnt have been any obama -> trump voters. But there were a lot.

Obama was mr HOPE AND CHANGE who they voted for while the bankers were crashing the economy. Occupy wall street was happening. Then obama betrayed the entire movement and proved dems are just big money sellouts too. Dems rejected populism, so trump embraced it and won.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where's the half loaf? We elected moderate dems and what have they done? Some new roads and bridges #41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I mean, we're lucky we got even that much between Manchin (in a state Biden lost by 30 points) and Green Party Kyrsten "Look at Me!" Sinema.

It took the Repubs forty years to get us to this point, it'll probably take at least that long to remedy the harm. Assuming we even get the chance once the Repub SCOTUS sabotages every election result that doesn't go their way and throws out every law that they disagree with.

But sure, keep blaming Dems because this country isn't as left as you'd like, and then watch the Repubs destroy our country, and then blame the Dems some more for not fixing everything overnight.

We came pretty close to having our democracy collapse a couple years ago. With enough petty progressives throwing hissy-fits because they don't get what they want when they want it, maybe the Repubs will have a chance to finish the job. And then all of the puritopians can pat themselves on the back.

#43 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 09:03 PM | Reply

We came pretty close to having our democracy collapse a couple years ago.

#43 | Posted by censored

We sure did. So why aren't dems doing anything about that? As i said - it requires zero republican votes. All it requires is courage and the willingness to prosecute criminals. If we handn't elected a pathetic moderate president maybe we'd have a PROSECUTOR as attorney general, instead of a JUDGE who values seeming nonpartisan above saving democracy.

What has dems message been since they got elected? Could the average american even tell you? Forget votes. What would the average american tell you dems even believe in? Pronoun enforcement and defund the police most likely.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-24 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pronoun enforcement and defund the police most likely. #44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Well, you got me there. When they started that crap about "Doctor Jill" I sensed where they were headed.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

Organizing Dems is like herding cats. Everyone has their own shiny bauble that they think is most important and then they turn on each other.

On the other hand, Repubs, all they care about is cutting taxes and making rich people richer. Everything else (gays, trans, abortion, etc.) is window dressing to rile up the rubes to get them to vote against their self-interest. Much easier to do.

So the left keeps letting itself get divided while the right keep their eyes on the prize. Watching the dysfunction on the left is actually pretty funny. Shame, though, about all the folks that the right hurts when given the opportunity.

In any event, even if the Dems passed all the legislation of your dreams, Trump's SCOTUS would probably toss in the crapper. Not much solace, I know, but thems the breaks.

#45 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-24 10:05 PM | Reply

Our failure to hang Kissinger from a lamp post is a great shame on our country. Remember, this POS intentionally sabotaged the Paris Peace Accords more than once to win an election. He then used the time he created to illegally expand the war into Laos and Cambodia. Treason of the highest order. Once a treaty was signed he managed to double cross North and South Vietnam simultaneously within days. Neither peace nor honor.
Backed Pakistan in 71. Installed Pinochet in 73 (after arranging the murder of Rene Schnieder). A bizarre double double cross in Cyprus in 74. Suharto in 75.

Every time a member of the press, grazing on the lower slopes of international morality, seeks out the opinion of this monster on affairs of State it should serve as a reminder of how complacent and incompetent the "news" media has become.

#46 | Posted by BluSky at 2022-05-25 05:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#19 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-05-24 04:07 PM | FLAG:

Thats the high school summary of Sanger.

The college summary includes her eugenics and racism, praise of Nazi eugenics, desire to purge disabled people from society through forced sterilization, etc.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-05-25 08:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

how is this man not dead yet?

what is he, like 143?

#48 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-05-25 10:09 AM | Reply

"Obama was mr HOPE AND CHANGE who they voted for while the bankers were crashing the economy."

So how'd he win a second term?
Your narrative can't explain how he won a second term. Or why Clinton won a second term, for that matter.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 10:52 AM | Reply

The college summary includes her eugenics and racism, praise of Nazi eugenics, desire to purge disabled people from society through forced sterilization, etc.
#47 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

The same thing happens with Charles A. Lindbergh.
As children we are taught to celebrate him as a hero.
Later we learn he was an American Nazi.

Both are examples of how racism is simply whitewashed in the teaching of American history.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 10:56 AM | Reply

Both are examples of how racism is simply whitewashed in the teaching of American history.

#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-25 10:56 AM | FLAG:

I almost compared Lamp's copy-paste of a slice of Sanger's bio to talking about Henry Ford's welfare capitalism without mentioning The International Jew.

#51 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-05-25 11:34 AM | Reply

^^ which ironically lives on in Qtards that can't separate the conspiracy New World Order, from a George Bush post-Soviet Union talking point.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-05-25 11:34 AM | Reply

"We elected moderate dems and what have they done?"

The other alternative was to vote for a Republican.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:10 PM | Reply

Both are examples of how racism is simply whitewashed in the teaching of American history.

#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

They could also be examples of how people are rarely one-dimensional. A person we regard on balance as good may have done some bad things, and vice versa. The yin and yang, if you will. Sitz' Henry Ford example is another good one.

#54 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-25 12:12 PM | Reply

Thomas Jefferson grooming slave child Sally Hemings to be his concubine is another oft-overlooked example.

I've even heard people say those were different times with different values. But that's BS. Plenty of people thought what Jefferson did to that girl was a moral outrage at the time.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 12:18 PM | Reply

#52

IT's sort of amazing to me how many republicans now echo sentiments that were for years talking points of the far left, from vaccine conspiracies to the rule of the elites to international banking.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:19 PM | Reply

^
Know-it-alls are always "amazed" when they are reminded they don't actually know everything

#57 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2022-05-25 12:22 PM | Reply

In any event, even if the Dems passed all the legislation of your dreams, Trump's SCOTUS would probably toss in the crapper. Not much solace, I know, but thems the breaks.

#45 | Posted by censored

Which is why making the case to the country for fixing the supreme court should have been their first priority.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:28 PM | Reply

"Later we learn he was an American Nazi."

You have to think of why people supported the Nazi's, both in Germany and worldwide. Many Germans viewed the National Socialists as the only party capable of defeating communism. German soldiers couldn't understand why the allies were fighting against them and not with them. I can't remember who it was, but upon his arrest one high-ranking Nazi General told his American captors to free him and his men and join them in the fight against the communists.

As far as heroes go, Lauri Trni was a Finnish commando who fought against the Russians as a commando before joining the SS after Finland capitulated to the Communists. He was captured by the British, escaped, and later joined the fledling US special forces in 1954 and quickly went from being a Private to a Captain in three years. He died in a helicopter crash in Vietnam in 1965. He is considered by Finland to be one of it's most important personalities.

#59 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:29 PM | Reply

"Which is why making the case to the country for fixing the supreme court should have been their first priority."

Dude, pretty much everything you say suggests you should have been at the Capitol on Jan 6. There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court, and I'm not sure what you mean by "fix," but it's almost certainly unconstitutional.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:31 PM | Reply

SadBoomer,

Only you think of Nazis and equate it to socialism.

The majority of the world thinks of Nazis and equates it to white supremacy and antisemitism.

Which is why you see them marching with conservatives at their hate rallies.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-25 12:33 PM | Reply

"German soldiers couldn't understand why the allies were fighting against them and not with them."

Can you understand why the allies were fighting against them?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 12:34 PM | Reply

"Only you think of Nazis and equate it to socialism."

It is in their name.

"The majority of the world thinks of Nazis and equates it to white supremacy and antisemitism."

OK. YOu can't be a socialist and a white supremacist?

Many far-right groups might be even more anti-capitalist than you are. For a variety of reasons.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:35 PM | Reply

So how'd he win a second term?
Your narrative can't explain how he won a second term. Or why Clinton won a second term, for that matter.

#49 | Posted by snoofy

Because presidents almost always win a second term. Trump would have too if it weren't for a once in a century pandemic, even though he'd displayed massive corruption and crimes to the whole world.

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:37 PM | Reply

OK. YOu can't be a socialist and a white supremacist?

Many far-right groups might be even more anti-capitalist than you are. For a variety of reasons.

#63 | Posted by madbomber

Occupy wall street was the left.

Overthrow democracy was the right.

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:38 PM | Reply

"Can you understand why the allies were fighting against them?"

Yes. Because the German's declared war on the US after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

That's the quick and easy answer. Had Germany not declared war, it's possible that the US would have continued to provive materiel support for European allies without committing troops to the fight.

#66 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dude, pretty much everything you say suggests you should have been at the Capitol on Jan 6. There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court, and I'm not sure what you mean by "fix," but it's almost certainly unconstitutional.

#60 | Posted by madbomber

FIX means make it represent the opinions of america, instead of passing policies that only a small minority wants, because a majority of judges were appointed by president who didn't even get the most votes to get elected and 2 seats were outright stolen. Every thing this court does is illegitimate and will be until it's rebalanced to reflect the country.

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:40 PM | Reply

"Trump would have too if it weren't for a once in a century pandemic, even though he'd displayed massive corruption and crimes to the whole world."

Trump's response to COVID, his stupid comments aside, was one of his least bad decisions.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:40 PM | Reply

#65

I think there are different motives. The far right views capitalism as a means of controlling the population. They don't seem to care much about the money.

The left just wants the capitalists money.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"FIX means make it represent the opinions of america"

That is absolutely, 100%, not the role of the Supreme Court. Unless you think that popular opinion should determine the legality of legislation. In which case you don't really need a supreme court.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:43 PM | Reply

That is absolutely, 100%, not the role of the Supreme Court. Unless you think that popular opinion should determine the legality of legislation. In which case you don't really need a supreme court.

#70 | Posted by madbomber

Doesn't matter. Any ruling that comes from a supreme court where 2 seats were stolen, 3 seats were filled by a traitor on putin's payroll, 3 justices lied during their confirmation hearings, and a majority of judges were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote - is illegitimate.

#71 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The left just wants the capitalists money.

#69 | Posted by madbomber

The left just wants capital to circulate fairly, instead of capitalists being allowed to buy the government and write rules that allows them to suck up all the capital and make everyone else suffer.

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:49 PM | Reply

Only you think of Nazis and equate it to socialism.

"It is in their name."

But not in their governance.

Using your logic, Saddam's guards were all Republicans.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-25 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Using your logic, Saddam's guards were all Republicans."

Using your logic, the left-wing Spanish governemnt that was overthrown by Franco was Republicans.

They acutally were Republicans. It's what they called themselves.

#74 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Using your logic, Saddam's guards were all Republicans.

Using his "logic" Buffalo wings come from Buffalos.

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-25 12:54 PM | Reply

"Doesn't matter. Any ruling that comes from a supreme court where 2 seats were stolen, 3 seats were filled by a traitor on putin's payroll, 3 justices lied during their confirmation hearings, and a majority of judges were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote - is illegitimate."

Maybe you and a bunch of your friends should beat down the doors of the Supreme Court building and express you anger at their illigitimacy.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:54 PM | Reply

"The left just wants capital to circulate fairly"

It does circulate fairly.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Using his "logic" Buffalo wings come from Buffalos."

And Philly Cheese Steaks come from a Philly.

A Philly is a horse, BTW. I wouldn't expect you to know that.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The left just wants capital to circulate fairly"

It does circulate fairly.

#77 | Posted by madbomber

So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:57 PM | Reply

Maybe you and a bunch of your friends should beat down the doors of the Supreme Court building and express you anger at their illigitimacy.

#76 | Posted by madbomber

We did that in 2020 by electing democrats. It's their job to fix the problem.

We dont attempt coups. Your cult does. And you keep voting for them.

#80 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 12:59 PM | Reply

I wouldn't expect you to know that.
#78 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Did they recently teach you that in you ESL classes?

#81 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-25 01:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?"

You would need to give me an example.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 01:09 PM | Reply

"Your cult does. And you keep voting for them."

I voted for Biden.

But I think when you refer to "my" cult, you're actually referring to anyone who isn't in your cult.

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 01:10 PM | Reply

"Did they recently teach you that in you ESL classes?"

Ja. Genau.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 01:11 PM | Reply

A Philly is a horse, BTW. I wouldn't expect you to know that.

#78 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

A Filly is a female horse, until maturity or being bred.

#85 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-25 01:24 PM | Reply

"So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?"
You would need to give me an example.

#82 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The income tax code?

#86 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-25 01:25 PM | Reply

A Philly is a horse, BTW. I wouldn't expect you to know that.

#78 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

stupid is as stupid posts

#87 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-25 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?"
You would need to give me an example.
#82 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Example: Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than income.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 01:32 PM | Reply

"The income tax code?"

Then they are failing miserably. The rich pay the vast majority of income taxes in the US. Both in total amount and effective tax rate.

In contrast, low income earners in Europe have a far greater income tax rate than low income earners in the US

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 01:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Example: Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than income."

Long term only. And that applies to anyone who has capital gains.

#90 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-25 01:36 PM | Reply

Uh huh. Long term capital gains. Taxed at a lower rate than labor income.

That's a perfect example.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 01:39 PM | Reply

"And that applies to anyone who has capital gains."

It sure does. Who has more capital, rich people or poor people?
Like I said, it's a perfect example.

Are you worried that something bad will happen if you acknowledge that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 01:40 PM | Reply

"You would need to give me an example."

You've been given GRATs, carried interest, and "stepped-up basis" multiple times in the past. Why do you ask this question again and again?

"that applies to anyone who has capital gains."

Except once inherited (usually tax-free), the cost basis resets. If grandma paid $10,000, and you inherited it at $100,000, your Cost Basis is...

...$100,000. NOBODY pays capital gains taxes on that $90K of capital gain.

#93 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-25 01:51 PM | Reply

"Why do you ask this question again and again?"

His world view demands he deny reality.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-25 01:52 PM | Reply

I voted for Biden.

But I think when you refer to "my" cult, you're actually referring to anyone who isn't in your cult.

#83 | Posted by madbomber

Sure you did. And you voted for a bunch of people who voted to enable trump and not hold him accoutable for his crimes.

Who's my cult leader? What are my cult's beliefs?

#95 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 01:55 PM | Reply

Then they are failing miserably. The rich pay the vast majority of income taxes in the US. Both in total amount and effective tax rate.

In contrast, low income earners in Europe have a far greater income tax rate than low income earners in the US

#89 | Posted by madbomber

So how come it's so much less miserable to be poor in europe than in the USA? How come they have more class mobility than we do?

If the rich are paying so much taxes in america, how come they have a larger share of wealth than every before, and the poor have less?

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 01:57 PM | Reply

"So you deny that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?"

You would need to give me an example.

#82 | Posted by madbomber

Trump's 10 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. The rich's tax cuts were huge and PERMANENT, the working class's tax cuts were small and TEMPORARY. Love to hear your explanation for that.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 01:58 PM | Reply

"If the rich are paying so much taxes in america..."

...then they're woefully underpaying, since we keep running massive deficits.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-25 02:05 PM | Reply

Madbomber is mostly pissed that I've figured out he's not an American citizen.

He's also a champion for class warfare, constantly defending the .01% and a staunch supporter of nazism based on how regularly he derails any conversation about them with diversions of socialism.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-25 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

he derails any conversation about them with diversions of socialism.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack

He has a google alert to tell him anytime the word SOCIALISM appears on any retort thread so he can jump in and start implying democrats mean stalin or china when they use the word socialism, instead of meaning canada or sweden.

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 02:25 PM | Reply

start implying democrats mean stalin or china when they use the word socialism, instead of meaning canada or sweden.

Unless you tell him you mean the type of Democratic Socialism that exists in Sweden or Canada, then he tells you that's just capitalism.

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-25 02:33 PM | Reply

Which is why making the case to the country for fixing the supreme court should have been their first priority. #58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Best of luck accomplishing that with Manchin and "School Girl Outfit Curtsy" Sinema calling the shots. Manchin is about as close to a Republican as one can get without an (R). And Sinema, she just likes the attention and pretending to be Mavericky because that's how she thinks she can fill McCain's shoes.

You seem to expect an awful lot of a Dem party that barely has any power.

At this point, I'm just glad we have someone in office who isn't a petty dictator-in-waiting bending over for Putin on command and trying to figure out how to off half of our people.

#102 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-25 02:46 PM | Reply

Best of luck accomplishing that with Manchin and "School Girl Outfit Curtsy" Sinema calling the shots. Manchin is about as close to a Republican as one can get without an (R). And Sinema, she just likes the attention and pretending to be Mavericky because that's how she thinks she can fill McCain's shoes.

You seem to expect an awful lot of a Dem party that barely has any power.

At this point, I'm just glad we have someone in office who isn't a petty dictator-in-waiting bending over for Putin on command and trying to figure out how to off half of our people.

#102 | Posted by censored

I'm not saying it would have worked, I'm saying they should have made the case to america and fought for what's right. It establishes what your long term goals are and lets people know what they're voting for when they vote for your party. Just like trump didn't build the wall, but his supporters love him for trying. It shows what side you're on and who you represent.

#103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 03:03 PM | Reply

I'm not saying it would have worked, I'm saying they should have made the case to america and fought for what's right. It establishes what your long term goals are and lets people know what they're voting for when they vote for your party. Just like trump didn't build the wall, but his supporters love him for trying. It shows what side you're on and who you represent. #103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

It also puts a huge target on your back if you come from a swing state. The Dems had a supermajority in the Senate in 2008 and lost it about a year later when a Repub took Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts of all places. Then Dems lost power almost entirely because they had the gall to try to provide some minimal healthcare for Americans.

This country is not nearly as progressive as you believe. Even incremental change is a stretch, IMHO, as half of this nation would gladly re-elect a man who tried to tear our country down.

#104 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-25 03:34 PM | Reply

It also puts a huge target on your back if you come from a swing state. The Dems had a supermajority in the Senate in 2008 and lost it about a year later when a Repub took Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts of all places. Then Dems lost power almost entirely because they had the gall to try to provide some minimal healthcare for Americans.

This country is not nearly as progressive as you believe. Even incremental change is a stretch, IMHO, as half of this nation would gladly re-elect a man who tried to tear our country down.

#104 | Posted by censored

Or it gives people in swing states a reason to vote for you.

The way to win swing states is not being as moderate and inoffensive as possible. Watch john fetterman.

This country is more anti moderate than you believe. Especially the people who dont vote who could be convinced to vote democrat, if democrats showed any spine or willingness to fight.

#105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 04:33 PM | Reply

Especially the people who dont vote who could be convinced to vote democrat, if democrats showed any spine or willingness to fight. #105 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

You think Dems loudly claiming that they are the pro-abortion party is going to win them 60 seats in the Senate? Even Al Gore had to be pro-life to get elected to the Senate from Tennessee. Or Dems defining themselves as the socialism party is going to convince Cubans to vote for them in Florida?

The Senate is counter-majoritarian by design. And there aren't enough blue-leaning folks in the flyover states to offset the middle-of-the-road voters who would be turned off.

Heck, Bernie couldn't even win the Dem nomination, let alone the general. You think that apathetic voters who sit out the general election are more liberal than the Dem party that rejected Bernie twice?

#106 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-25 05:00 PM | Reply

You think Dems loudly claiming that they are the pro-abortion party is going to win them 60 seats in the Senate? Even Al Gore had to be pro-life to get elected to the Senate from Tennessee. Or Dems defining themselves as the socialism party is going to convince Cubans to vote for them in Florida?

The Senate is counter-majoritarian by design. And there aren't enough blue-leaning folks in the flyover states to offset the middle-of-the-road voters who would be turned off.

Heck, Bernie couldn't even win the Dem nomination, let alone the general. You think that apathetic voters who sit out the general election are more liberal than the Dem party that rejected Bernie twice?

#106 | Posted by censored

You're afraid of loudly proclaiming something that a large majority of the country agrees with?

What percentage of the people would need to support a policy before you think dems can loudly proclaim they support it? 90? 100?

Dems are too cowardly to even loudly proclaim we should legalize weed, even though its supported by a majority of americans.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 05:14 PM | Reply

You're afraid of loudly proclaiming something that a large majority of the country agrees with? #107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Doesn't matter if 100% of Massachusetts agrees with something if only 49% of North Dakota agrees with it. That's how you end up losing those flyover states crucial to controlling the Senate. And socialism isn't something that the majority of this country agrees with. Maybe if you call it "equality of opportunity" or something. But the person selling it probably shouldn't be a self-avowed Jewish, socialist, atheist.

#108 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-25 05:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This country is too stupid to save itself. ..And it's well past time for Kissinger to STFU.

#109 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-05-25 05:37 PM | Reply

Kissinger's realpolitick has nothing to do with morality. International politics is rarely ever about morality. If you're fighting for principles rather than playing to win, chances are you will be outplayed. Kissinger's realism is advocating first and foremost for the self-interest of the United States: preserving it, defending it, or gaining more power, influence, and/or wealth. It is about choosing battles that further the nation's interests not fighting for the little guy or taking unnecessary risks to prove a point.

#110 | Posted by FasterDisaster at 2022-05-25 05:47 PM | Reply

Doesn't matter if 100% of Massachusetts agrees with something if only 49% of North Dakota agrees with it. That's how you end up losing those flyover states crucial to controlling the Senate. And socialism isn't something that the majority of this country agrees with. Maybe if you call it "equality of opportunity" or something. But the person selling it probably shouldn't be a self-avowed Jewish, socialist, atheist.

#108 | Posted by censored

YOu're not winning north dakota anyway. So it's all about what north carolina, pennsylvania, and michigan think. And swing states have majorities that support abortion. Christ moderate dems are absolutely blinded by cowardice.

#111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 05:53 PM | Reply

If dems are only allowed to push policies that north dakota approves of, what does that leave for them to support?

#112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 05:54 PM | Reply

YOu're not winning north dakota anyway. So it's all about what north carolina, pennsylvania, and michigan think. And swing states have majorities that support abortion. Christ moderate dems are absolutely blinded by cowardice. #111 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I was talking mostly about the Senate, like Tester from Montana or Manchin from W.V. "Build the Wall" was a net positive for Repubs. My guess is "I Luv Socialism" or "Abort that Babay!" might end up being a net negative for Manchin or Tester.

Also, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin were determinative in the last presidential election by a total of 90,000 votes. That means as few as 45,000 Biden voters would have swung the election to Trump if they switched their vote. Maybe you have a more charitable impression of the residents of those states than I do, but they don't strike me as socialism or abortion lovers.

If dems are only allowed to push policies that north dakota approves of, what does that leave for them to support? #112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Beats me! The electoral college and the senate system are fairly idiotic. Dems did OK for about forty years by being racist and supporting farmers. But then Dems switched to loving Blacks after Blacks won the right to vote and then abortion became an issue. The Repubs then decided that they loved farm subsidies, government intrusion into people's medical decisions and hated Blacks and they got a lock on the south and midwest.

I figured demographic changes would doom Repubs to losing elections in a few years, but now Latinos have decided that they kinda like Republicans.

It's a bit of a mess, but Repubs know how to rile folks up, with gay marriage, trans stuff, abortion, guns, etc.

None of that really motivates Dem-leaning voters to the same degree; I'm not really sure what does, at this point. Like I said, herding cats.

#113 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-25 06:25 PM | Reply

I was talking mostly about the Senate, like Tester from Montana or Manchin from W.V. "Build the Wall" was a net positive for Repubs. My guess is "I Luv Socialism" or "Abort that Babay!" might end up being a net negative for Manchin or Tester.

Also, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin were determinative in the last presidential election by a total of 90,000 votes. That means as few as 45,000 Biden voters would have swung the election to Trump if they switched their vote. Maybe you have a more charitable impression of the residents of those states than I do, but they don't strike me as socialism or abortion lovers.

If dems are only allowed to push policies that north dakota approves of, what does that leave for them to support? #112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Beats me! The electoral college and the senate system are fairly idiotic. Dems did OK for about forty years by being racist and supporting farmers. But then Dems switched to loving Blacks after Blacks won the right to vote and then abortion became an issue. The Repubs then decided that they loved farm subsidies, government intrusion into people's medical decisions and hated Blacks and they got a lock on the south and midwest.

I figured demographic changes would doom Repubs to losing elections in a few years, but now Latinos have decided that they kinda like Republicans.

It's a bit of a mess, but Repubs know how to rile folks up, with gay marriage, trans stuff, abortion, guns, etc.

None of that really motivates Dem-leaning voters to the same degree; I'm not really sure what does, at this point. Like I said, herding cats.

#113 | Posted by censored

All those swing states you listed have a majority supporting legal abortion. Dont be too stupid to run on what is popular in swing states.

we're not winning west virginia again even with another democrat on the republican payroll like manchin. You MIGHT win it with someone like fetterman.

Americans DO love socialism if you present it to them as a fight for their well being instead of wonky policies or calling it socialism. Call it FREE COLLEGE and they want it. Call if HEALTHCARE FOR ALL and they want it. Call it KILL THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY and they love it. Call it TAX THE RICH and they want it. Call it STOP CORPORATE TAX CHEATS and they'll vote for it. But it's hard to do those things when you're taking bribe money from those industries isn't it?
That's why dem's lost the working class. Because they got bought off and stopped fighting for them so they can't credibly claim to be on their side.

#114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 06:38 PM | Reply

All those swing states you listed have a majority supporting legal abortion. Dont be too stupid to run on what is popular in swing states.

Yeah, but will they turn out in the same numbers to vote for Dems as the number of folks it'll motivate to turn out against? I dunno.

Americans DO love socialism if you present it to them as a fight for their well being instead of wonky policies or calling it socialism. Call it FREE COLLEGE and they want it. Call if HEALTHCARE FOR ALL and they want it. Call it KILL THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY and they love it. Call it TAX THE RICH and they want it. Call it STOP CORPORATE TAX CHEATS and they'll vote for it. #114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Yeah, I used to love some of those ideas, but not really a fan of picking up the tab for people to study basket-weaving anymore.

Trying for universal healthcare cost Dems their congressional majority twice, so maybe if people actually want that stuff, they should come out and vote for it in midterms. I know, you're going to say that the healthcare reforms didn't go far enough. The voting results showed that most people felt that it went too far, though, to the point that they didn't even want to be responsible for a token fine for going without insurance. I don't think that folks who objected to a $2K fine are going to want to pay far more than that in taxes for a truly universal healthcare system, even if it ends up being a net positive once you deduct the savings from not paying for health insurance.

I reiterate, we are a stupid and divided people. The Repubs profit from that division, while Dems sit around and whine abut how life isn't fair and then stay at home and let Repubs win elections. Almost makes me want to become a Republican (say what you will about the tenets of the GOP, but it's a ethos).

#115 | Posted by censored at 2022-05-25 06:56 PM | Reply

Yeah, but will they turn out in the same numbers to vote for Dems as the number of folks it'll motivate to turn out against? I dunno.

Americans DO love socialism if you present it to them as a fight for their well being instead of wonky policies or calling it socialism. Call it FREE COLLEGE and they want it. Call if HEALTHCARE FOR ALL and they want it. Call it KILL THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY and they love it. Call it TAX THE RICH and they want it. Call it STOP CORPORATE TAX CHEATS and they'll vote for it. #114 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Yeah, I used to love some of those ideas, but not really a fan of picking up the tab for people to study basket-weaving anymore.

Trying for universal healthcare cost Dems their congressional majority twice, so maybe if people actually want that stuff, they should come out and vote for it in midterms. I know, you're going to say that the healthcare reforms didn't go far enough. The voting results showed that most people felt that it went too far, though, to the point that they didn't even want to be responsible for a token fine for going without insurance. I don't think that folks who objected to a $2K fine are going to want to pay far more than that in taxes for a truly universal healthcare system, even if it ends up being a net positive once you deduct the savings from not paying for health insurance.

I reiterate, we are a stupid and divided people. The Repubs profit from that division, while Dems sit around and whine abut how life isn't fair and then stay at home and let Repubs win elections. Almost makes me want to become a Republican (say what you will about the tenets of the GOP, but it's a ethos).

#115 | Posted by censored

So give them more than that. Fight for abortion to stay legal, weed to become legal, prosecuting corporate criminals, free education, and killing insurance companies, THEN ACTUALLY DO IT instead of selling out like all the bribe taking clintons and obamas.

Dems stay home because last time they didnt' stay home dems didn't fight for them. What you're describing is the RESULT of the dems' cowardice. Not the reason for them to continue being cowards.

How great for our nations future that even democrats are swallowing the "what do we need college for?" propaganda usually shoveled by the party that benefits when the nation is stupider.

Yeah why would we want people who've taken history classes and learned what the early stages of fascism look like? All we need to know how to do are work stamping machines.

#116 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-25 07:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger has urged the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, warning that it would have disastrous consequences for the long term stability of Europe.

Nonsense. Ukraine, with the aid of its allies, should inflict as much pain on the invading Russian forces as possible and push them COMPLETELY out of their country. The Russian military should be defeated so badly that 1) it will take a generation or two for it to rebuild and 2) the people of Russia will rid themselves of Putin and his acolytes.

Ukraine is doing Europe and the US a favor by battling and hopefully defeating Russia. They are depleting Russia of its military resources and personnel and preventing Russia from further aggression. Military stockpiles that exist in Europe and the US for possible war with Russia should be made available to the Ukrainians because they are fighting the war for which those stockpiles were created.

Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante.

I would have no problem with returning to the status quo as long as that status quo was prior to Russia taking the Crimean peninsula. Furthermore, Russia needs to pay for all of the physical damage that it has caused in Ukraine and reparations to the people of Ukraine for their trauma and loss of loved ones.

#117 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2022-05-26 10:37 AM | Reply

"Are you worried that something bad will happen if you acknowledge that the rich use their wealth to get policies passed that benefit them and help them get richer?"

How do rich people use policy to arbitrarily increase their economic value to society? Can you give me an example?

And if it were that easy, why would the government simply pass policy that does the same for lower income earners?

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:20 PM | Reply

"You've been given GRATs, carried interest, and "stepped-up basis" multiple times in the past. Why do you ask this question again and again?"

I will ask again. What policies arbitrarily increase the economic value (like labor value) of rich people.

You seem to be stating that you think it wrong for high income earners to be able to keep the income they earn, but that has nothing to do with their economic value-the reason why they earn so much money.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:22 PM | Reply

"Trump's 10 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. The rich's tax cuts were huge and PERMANENT, the working class's tax cuts were small and TEMPORARY. Love to hear your explanation for that."

This allowed people to keep more of their earned ioncome. I did little to nothing to influence the value of one's labor. High income earner or poor.

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:23 PM | Reply

"...then they're woefully underpaying, since we keep running massive deficits."

Why are you not saying "we're underpaying? Collectively?

#121 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:24 PM | Reply

"Madbomber is mostly pissed that I've figured out he's not an American citizen."

You did?

Wow.

You must be quite the sleuth.

Was it my accent?

#122 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:26 PM | Reply

"He's also a champion for class warfare, constantly defending the .01%"

They're the ones you're attacking.

If you were saying the poor should be paying more than the rich, I'd be defending them from you.

#123 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:27 PM | Reply

You're just as cunning as J_TosseRigel.

You live in Texas, right?

Oh no. He pretended to live in Texas.

You prefer to pretend you lived in Oregon.

Carry on being "clever" ...

#124 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-26 12:29 PM | Reply

"Unless you tell him you mean the type of Democratic Socialism that exists in Sweden or Canada, then he tells you that's just capitalism."

That's because it is capitalism, stupid.

What is it with you idiots refusing to even try to learn economics? And what is your issue with calling capitalism capitalism? You just can't get the words out of your throat?

And your weird obsession with branding yourself a socialist...one of most vile systems of all time, certainly of the last century.

#125 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That's because it is capitalism, stupid.

What is it with you idiots refusing to even try to learn economics? And what is your issue with calling capitalism capitalism? You just can't get the words out of your throat?

And your weird obsession with branding yourself a socialist...one of most vile systems of all time, certainly of the last century.

#125 | Posted by madbomber

So how come when dems say SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE you scream SOCIALISM! VENEZEULA! CHINA!

#126 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 12:31 PM | Reply

That's because it is capitalism, stupid.

There's no point of you posting anymore.

You've got nothing new to add to any conversation.

You've burnt out.

#127 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-26 12:32 PM | Reply

"I'm not saying it would have worked, I'm saying they should have made the case to america and fought for what's right."

Most of what you think is right, the rest of the country considers wrong.

#128 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:32 PM | Reply

"Trump's 10 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich. The rich's tax cuts were huge and PERMANENT, the working class's tax cuts were small and TEMPORARY. Love to hear your explanation for that."

This allowed people to keep more of their earned ioncome. I did little to nothing to influence the value of one's labor. High income earner or poor.

#120 | Posted by madbomber

Income they earned all on their own without any support from government or society?

You dodged the question: Why were the tax cuts for the rich huge and permanent while the tax cuts for the working class were small and temporary?

You asked for evidence that the rich use their wealth to write rules to make themselves wealthier and there it is.

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 12:33 PM | Reply

"I'm not saying it would have worked, I'm saying they should have made the case to america and fought for what's right."

Most of what you think is right, the rest of the country considers wrong.

#128 | Posted by madbomber

A majority of america thinks roe should be upheld. So they agree with me, and not with the illegitimate supreme court.

#130 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 12:34 PM | Reply

"So how come when dems say SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE you scream SOCIALISM! VENEZEULA! CHINA!"

Yer an idiot, dude.

How many times have you heard me say that, if it's funded by capitalism, it ain't socialism.

And if you look hard enough you'll find that there has never been a truly socialist state. They all kept bread on the table by producing goods that they sold for hard cash in the global market.

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:34 PM | Reply

"Income they earned all on their own without any support from government or society?"

Anyone who helped them, government or otherwise, was compensated for their services.

#132 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:36 PM | Reply

"You dodged the question: Why were the tax cuts for the rich huge and permanent while the tax cuts for the working class were small and temporary?"

I couldn't tell you.

But what I can tell you is that the rich were/are already paying an inordinately high chuck of the federal income tax bill, both in total dollars and percentage.

"You asked for evidence that the rich use their wealth to write rules to make themselves wealthier and there it is."

No, because none of that changes how much people are willing to pay them. The only thing it changes is the amount the government allows them to keep.

Furthermore, it also does nothing to alter the economic value of low-income earners.

#133 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:39 PM | Reply

"A majority of america thinks roe should be upheld."

Why would a majority of America care what happens in a different state? I mean, OK just enacted some new draconian abortion ban. So leave Oklahoma if you want to live in a state that allows abortion.

#134 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:41 PM | Reply

"So they agree with me, and not with the illegitimate supreme court."

You sound like a Trumper whining about illegitimate governments.

#135 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 12:41 PM | Reply

How many times have you heard me say that, if it's funded by capitalism, it ain't socialism.

How many times have you heard me say real socialism doesn't exist.

It's a boogeyman used to scare conservatives away from expecting the government to invest their tax dollars into benefiting all of society.

Rather than only being spent on corporations and the military.

#136 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-26 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How do rich people use policy to arbitrarily increase their economic value to society? Can you give me an example?"

I already gave you an example. Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than Income.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-26 01:00 PM | Reply

"Income they earned all on their own without any support from government or society?"

Anyone who helped them, government or otherwise, was compensated for their services.

#132 | Posted by madbomber

Really? How were the roadbuilders who's roads you used compensated? With TAXES paid for by other taxpayers, that build infrastructure for YOU to use, so you could make money. That money you made therefore is partially owed back to the government/society who made those roads and therefore made your business possible.

DUH.

#138 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 01:27 PM | Reply

You sound like a Trumper whining about illegitimate governments.

#135 | Posted by madbomber

Trumpers also whine about stolen elections. When they're the ones trying to steal them.

Just because a trumper lies, doesn't mean someone else isn't telling the truth.

The supreme court no longer represents the country. It represents a small slice of the country that has rigged the system to give themselves an unearned share of power. The same small slice that never stops trying to find new ways to cheat to give themselves even more power.

#139 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 01:29 PM | Reply

"You dodged the question: Why were the tax cuts for the rich huge and permanent while the tax cuts for the working class were small and temporary?"

I couldn't tell you.

But what I can tell you is that the rich were/are already paying an inordinately high chuck of the federal income tax bill, both in total dollars and percentage.

#133 | Posted by madbomber

You could tell me but that would require you to admit that I'm right - that the wealthy use their wealth to bribe government to rig the economy in their favor - and you can't do that.

If their tax rates are so inordinately high, why do the wealthy have a larger percentage of the wealth in the country than every before? Because they're working harder than ever before? No. Because they're rigged the economy to benefit solely themselves more than every before.

#140 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 01:32 PM | Reply

"It's a boogeyman used to scare conservatives away from expecting the government to invest their tax dollars into benefiting all of society."

First, the government doesn't have any money it doesn't first take from the taxpayers. So you need reframe it as investing taxpayer dollars into operations, activities, and investments that benefit all of society. Which the government already does.

#141 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 01:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I already gave you an example. Capital Gains are taxed at a lower rate than Income."

Really?

You'll need to explain to me how tax rates impact labor value.

#142 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 01:55 PM | Reply

"Just because a trumper lies, doesn't mean someone else isn't telling the truth."

STOP THE STEAL!!!

#143 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 01:55 PM | Reply

"The supreme court no longer represents the country."

It isn't supposed to represent the country, you abject ------- ------. It's supposed to represent the constitution.

I take it back. You're not like a Trumper. You're worse.

You're like a spoiled child. I'm guessing because you are a spoiled child.

#144 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 01:58 PM | Reply

"If their tax rates are so inordinately high, why do the wealthy have a larger percentage of the wealth in the country than every before?"

Because they created the wealth.

If you wash dishes at Denny's, why would you think you would be entitled to the massive amounts of wealth created by companies like Apple and Telsa if you had nothing to do with that wealth creation.

It's like saying that if I bake a batch of cookies, you're entitled to a cookie because I baked a batch of cookies.

#145 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 02:00 PM | Reply

"Billionaires' fortunes have not increased because they are now smarter or working harder. Workers are working harder, for less pay and in worse conditions. The super-rich have rigged the system with impunity for decades and they are now reaping the benefits."

One of life's repeatables.

Conservative TR addressed the rigged system by breaking up Gilded Age corporate monopolies, and Democrat FDR gave the country a New Deal to help level the playing field against a system that flows money upwards making "the rich get richer".

Now corporations are Super Citizens under the law and Bribery of politicians to write favorable laws is legal.

It's time for another Roosevelt.

drudge.com

Of course, some people are so in awe of the very wealthy that they close their eyes, their ears, and their minds when it is pointed out to them that the very wealthy have rigged the game....

... they are like a Casino; they set the rules and they always win in the end.

(Trump Casinos not included... he's about the only guy that could lose money running them)

#146 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-26 02:07 PM | Reply

First, the government doesn't have any money it doesn't first take from the taxpayers. So you need reframe it as investing taxpayer dollars into operations, activities, and investments that benefit all of society. Which the government already does.

#141 | Posted by madbomber

Taxpayers dont have any money that they earn without support from the government. It's a partnership. Something "My money is all mine and I earned it all on my own" babies are too dumb to understand.

#147 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 03:22 PM | Reply

"If their tax rates are so inordinately high, why do the wealthy have a larger percentage of the wealth in the country than every before?"

Because they created the wealth.

#145 | Posted by madbomber

Workers create the wealth. The rich harvest it from them. That's why making workers work harder makes the rich richer.

Then the rich take that wealth, and use it to get politicians elected who promise to lower their taxes, which creates the need to cut social services that benefit workers and help them rise above the working class.

#148 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 03:24 PM | Reply

You're like a spoiled child. I'm guessing because you are a spoiled child.

#144 | Posted by madbomber

This coming from the guy who benefits from government programs that he doesnt want anyone else to have.

#149 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're like a spoiled child. I'm guessing because you are a spoiled child.

A Trump lover like mythboofer calling others spoiled children is hilarious.

You support trump and his spawn.

All the most petulant, spoiled brats in the history of this nation.

You can fkkk off with your condemnation.

#150 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-26 03:35 PM | Reply

#149

This is true.

The last halfway decent Republican President said:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

And Ike wasn't just talking about the weapons industry:

www.npr.org

People in the military need to realize that the ties their organizations have to Corporations need to be monitored closely, not assumed to exist just to make the Corporations more wealthy.

Most of them are only patriotic if that helps the bottom line. Otherwise they offshore their earnings and cheat the government... and the military, without any hesitation.

War is, for the most part, "a racket", as Marine Corp Major Gen Butler pointed out so well.

#151 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-26 03:40 PM | Reply

"Taxpayers dont have any money that they earn without support from the government."

Yeah?

Which of your preferred politicians should stump with that campaign message?

Do you think Joe should lead off with that for 2024? Maybe even the whole Dem party?

"you bitches don't earn ---- unless we say you do."

It'll be super successful, I'm, sure.

#152 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 04:04 PM | Reply

"Workers create the wealth. The rich harvest it from them. That's why making workers work harder makes the rich richer."

YOu, my friend, are a Marxist.

One of the last of a dying breed. It is my pleasure to have actually known one before they faded into the oblivion of history.

#153 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 04:06 PM | Reply

"You can fkkk off with your condemnation."

Finally!!!!

I've been waiting for your permission to fkkk off.

Now I can sleep.

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-26 04:08 PM | Reply

Companies automate what they can if it can save them money.

This is the most common way the worker is victimized by technology.

It's unpleasant but there is no stopping it.

Why must this continually generate a new and renewed episode of angst and dismay as though it's something new?

#155 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-26 04:13 PM | Reply

"Taxpayers dont have any money that they earn without support from the government."

Yeah?

Which of your preferred politicians should stump with that campaign message?

Do you think Joe should lead off with that for 2024? Maybe even the whole Dem party?

"you bitches don't earn ---- unless we say you do."

It'll be super successful, I'm, sure.

#152 | Posted by madbomber

What message? Reality? I noticed you dont deny it.

"The rich have used their wealth to rig government and the economy in their favor" is a very popular message.

#156 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 05:47 PM | Reply

YOu, my friend, are a Marxist.

One of the last of a dying breed. It is my pleasure to have actually known one before they faded into the oblivion of history.

#153 | Posted by madbomber

And you are a moron who took one class and thinks you can dodge every ethical issue with a semantic debate about the historical movements that end with "ISM".

The ones squeezing growing and squeezing the lemons are the ones who make the lemonade and quench people's thirst.

#157 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 05:50 PM | Reply

- It's unpleasant but there is no stopping it.

Is that like, "nothing can be done"?

- Why must this continually generate a new and renewed episode of angst and dismay as though it's something new?

Desensitization of the population to the sometimes horrible costs of doing Business, you know, such as war and attacks with easily available tactical weapons on Elementary Schools, only helps the MIC, particularly the Corporate part, do what unfettered capitalism does best; make the already rich keep getting richer... at the expense of the rest of humanity.

It's the momentum of the money flow upwards that keeps a wholly unnecessarily painful existence for most of the world's population in order for Andrea to buy more yachts, if you know what I mean, not this equally painfully dull assertion that crony capitalism is somehow still a meritocracy.

It isn't. Billionaires ride the already rising wave they jumped on at some opportune time, and now given the way they've rigged the economic funnel, as long as you reach a certain level of wealth, and if you aren't completely incompetent economically even with the best experts on you payroll... or you are an island owning pimp, then you are golden.

At the expense of everyone else, and because you write your own tax laws with your political donations.

See how that werks?

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-26 05:59 PM | Reply

-Is that like, "nothing can be done"?

Yes, just like that.

Nothing

Can

Be

Done

You can't stop the innovation of new technologies that will generate these efficiencies that ultimately runs a low-skilled worker out of job.

You can't stop it.

-Desensitization of the population to the sometimes horrible costs of doing Business,

Take it up with the guys who invented the cotton gin, the tractor and plow, the dishwasher, and mass production of almost anything....We've been creating the uber wealthy in this manner for a long long time.

-and because you write your own tax laws with your political donations.

We agree something needs to be done about that but it won't stop everything else I pointed out from happening.

#159 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-26 06:11 PM | Reply

"It isn't. Billionaires ride the already rising wave they jumped on at some opportune time, and now given the way they've rigged the economic funnel, as long as you reach a certain level of wealth, and if you aren't completely incompetent economically even with the best experts on you payroll... or you are an island owning pimp, then you are golden."

This ongoing argument about how much credit a billionaire is entitled to isn't mine.

I'm not interested in arguing where credit goes. It's a complex argument. I typically lean more left on that specific issue for the most part but it doesn't matter.

It doesn't change the direction we've been going for the past 150 years and it won't change moving forward either.

People are going to get wealthy.....I know that stings but it's going to happen. That Thom Hartmann video talks about a higher frequency of new billionaires being generated.

Yep.....I'm sure that's right.

Get used to more and more of that.

#160 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-26 06:16 PM | Reply

"I'm sure that's right. Get used to more and more of that."

Doesn't that suggest there's something terribly wrong with the tax code?

#161 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-26 06:22 PM | Reply

- You can't stop it.

You don't have to stop it, you just have to value other things people can offer society.

Also divert the flow of money back to the top into the society after it reaches proportions that damage the society.

And don't listen to Corporations whine about it; it's their fault, no one forced them to rig the system so that they could write their own tax laws and move to other countries is they didn't get their way.

Ike was right about the dangers to the country of the MIC, and the Corporate part is way more dangerous these days because it controls the politicians who control the Law and now they even have the SC.

#162 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-26 06:22 PM | Reply

People are going to get wealthy.....I know that stings but it's going to happen. That Thom Hartmann video talks about a higher frequency of new billionaires being generated.

Yep.....I'm sure that's right.

Get used to more and more of that.

#160 | Posted by eberly

Even the billionaires know where the hoarding of national wealth eventually leads, which is why the Bushes bought a survival compound down in argentina and new zealand is selling rows of survival bunker mansions to american milloinaires and billionaires.

#163 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-26 06:29 PM | Reply

"Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts."
-- Molly Ivins

#164 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-26 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-You don't have to stop it, you just have to value other things people can offer society.

Such as?

#165 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-26 09:11 PM | Reply

-Doesn't that suggest there's something terribly wrong with the tax code?

What suggests that?

What problem specifically are you looking at?

Too many billionaires?

Pull one of the new billionaires out and blame the tax code on it

tell me why they shouldn't be rich.

I might agree with you but you should give me a specific example of how the tax code generated a billionaire that shouldn't be a billionaire.

#166 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-26 09:17 PM | Reply

#166

You are being dense again...

drudge.com

- Such as?

Individuals in a society of robotic tech will be able to do more than flip burgers and punch time clocks for big corporations.

Philosophy, art, science... helping to solve future problems before they happen rather than after. Humanity will be freed up to use their minds and spirits rather than their backs.

Which may be why rwingers are such extremists now... they haven't much to offer the future.

#167 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-26 11:14 PM | Reply

tell me why they shouldn't be rich.

I might agree with you but you should give me a specific example of how the tax code generated a billionaire that shouldn't be a billionaire.

#166 | Posted by eberly a

By cutting their tax rates dum dum.

Tell me why billionaires should be getting tax cuts while teachers have to take side jobs to pay their rent.

#168 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-27 12:37 PM | Reply

Corky didn't come within a thousand miles of answering my questions.

He's just hung up on the unfairness of it.

Which I agree with, BTW. But it's a more complex argument than just what's fair.

Anybody can make up an idea that has no chance of becoming reality......that's not a solution.

#169 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 12:51 PM | Reply

"-Doesn't that suggest there's something terribly wrong with the tax code?
What suggests that?
What problem specifically are you looking at?"

^
How about: Capital Gains taxed at a lower rate tha Income.

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 12:54 PM | Reply

Before anybody tries to jump into this...please confirm you understand and comprehend the statement below.....

"You can't stop the innovation of new technologies that will generate these efficiencies that ultimately runs a low-skilled worker out of job."

I have issue with addressing capital gains tax rates vs income tax rates. I've always conceded that's an issue.

But it doesn't address my statement regarding innovation and how it will be punitive towards the bottom 20%.

You are shackled to the notion that changing tax rates addresses that challenge.

It doesn't and none of you seem to understand that.

#171 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 01:02 PM | Reply

sorry...."I have NO issue with addressing...."

#172 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 01:03 PM | Reply

"But it doesn't address my statement regarding innovation and how it will be punitive towards the bottom 20%.
You are shackled to the notion that changing tax rates addresses that challenge."

Well, if you have money to invest, and let's just assert all other things are equal, would you take the higher ROI or the lower?

Adjusting the tax rate forces the above question.

And the history of America from 1945 to 1975 shows broad prosperity when the tax incentives ran the other way. The history Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

Can we agree on all that, Eberly?

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 01:15 PM | Reply

"Well, if you have money to invest, and let's just assert all other things are equal, would you take the higher ROI or the lower?
Adjusting the tax rate forces the above question."

That's too abstract. Give me a specific example. And stay on topic, please.

#174 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 01:18 PM | Reply

"You can't stop the innovation of new technologies that will generate these efficiencies that ultimately runs a low-skilled worker out of job."

It's been tried. I mentioned IP law as a battlefront in what you're talking about.

But low skilled worker is far too narrow a net.

There used to be boxing halls throughout the land. Once you could listen to boxing on the radio, and later on TV, people would stay home to get their boxing entertainment. Very few boxing halls these days. But I wouldn't call running a boxing business (or any) a low skilled job.

There used to be pay phones. I'm not sure pay phone installation and repair is a low-skilled job...

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 01:21 PM | Reply

"That's too abstract. Give me a specific example. And stay on topic, please."

Oh come on.

Stock buybacks vs enterprise growth.

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 01:22 PM | Reply

-And the history of America from 1945 to 1975 shows broad prosperity when the tax incentives ran the other way. The history Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

From 1945 to 1975 the American factory worker didn't have a foreign competitor for the same job.

Why do you continue to ignore this obvious historical and relevant fact?

If we returned to the tax structure of 1945-1975, you believe all is well....the current ills are washed away. Right?

Who agrees with you on that assertion?

I'm not an economist so I can't say if you're right or wrong but rather someone who understands the problem is 1,000 times more complex than you make it out to be.

That we'll go back to the prosperity of the 1950s (when all other major powers were insignificant from an industrial standpoint) if we just raise taxes on the top 1%.

It's not that simple.

#177 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 01:22 PM | Reply

-Stock buybacks vs enterprise growth.

How does that point to a specific billionaire that you think wouldn't be a billionaire if we had the tax code you want? (if in fact you actually know what you really want)

Do you even know how a stock buyback works and specifically how that screws a worker over?

#178 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 01:25 PM | Reply

Who cares about a specific billionaire?
We're talking about the economy.

#179 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 01:31 PM | Reply

179

We're talking about how innovation and technology impacts a segment of workers all the time in our economy.

It's a never-ending challenge and won't stop.

Certainly not with tax code changes.

The unfairness of it can't be fixed that way, unless you can specifically show me how. Not post your 1975 stat over and over. That doesn't address the issue. That simply reflects the unfairness of it.

technology and innovation will always result in creative destruction.

Neither a democrat nor a republican can stop it.

Wanna know how I know that?

Because neither democrats nor republicans have successfully done it yet.

#180 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 01:42 PM | Reply

"Do you even know how a stock buyback works and specifically how that screws a worker over?"

Tell ya what.
Why don't you go ahead and explain it.
Or... would you prefer to deny it?

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 01:42 PM | Reply

"We're talking about how innovation and technology impacts a segment of workers all the time in our economy."

Fair enough.

But I would still go beyond "workers."

Textbook companies for example are under threat from re-imports of textbooks they sell overseas for a fraction of the price.

As an example of innovation stymied by legislation, we can't legally reimport pharmaceuticals that have been exported.

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 01:47 PM | Reply

"The unfairness of it can't be fixed that way, unless you can specifically show me how."

You're not looking at how.

I said, investors will choose the higher ROI.
You said that's too abstract.

I said, stock buybacks vs growing the business.
You said, that screws workers, but I bet you can't explain why.
I said, no matter, you can explain why.

You and I should be on the same page now.

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:01 PM | Reply

"Tell ya what.
Why don't you go ahead and explain it."

How it could hurt a worker is when a company chooses to divert cash into buying outstanding stock rather than make capital investments.

And why do they do that? Because low corporate tax rates make it less of an incentive to make the capital investments vs a stock buy back which increases the share price.

And because executive compensation is weighted on stock price....naturally they will take care of themselves.

What you're talking about is a perverse incentive companies have to direct cash and resources where they shouldn't instead of where they should. All based on your own personal bias.

But that doesn't change one huge and material reality.....even if we increased corporate tax rates to incentivize a company to invest into itself....they are going to focus that investment on technology and innovation to maximize efficiency (which is French for less people doing same work). They aren't going to give the worker a raise unless the market price for that job increases.

#184 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:02 PM | Reply

"How it could hurt a worker is when a company chooses to divert cash into buying outstanding stock rather than make capital investments?"

^
Oh, so you've chosen the "deny it" approach.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:05 PM | Reply

"And why do they do that? Because low corporate tax rates make it less of an incentive to make the capital investments vs a stock buy back which increases the share price."

And changing the tax landscape will change the incentives... so far, so good...

#186 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:06 PM | Reply

And because executive compensation is weighted on stock price....naturally they will take care of themselves.

Naturally.

Naturally, they will take care of shareholders better than theh will take care of workers.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:07 PM | Reply

"What you're talking about is a perverse incentive companies have to direct cash and resources where they shouldn't instead of where they should. All based on your own personal bias."

Perverse incentive, sure.
But it's not based on my personal bias.
It's based on tax incentives.

#188 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:09 PM | Reply

Snoofy, you're arguing something I'm not.

I'm specifically talking about investments into technology and innovation.

And how those investments are going to continue and it will at times harm the value of a specific worker's job.

and you can't change that.

Not with corporate tax increases nor with higher estate tax rates nor with higher progressive income tax rates on individuals nor with higher capital gain tax increases.

It won't stop.

#189 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:10 PM | Reply

"But that doesn't change one huge and material reality.....even if we increased corporate tax rates to incentivize a company to invest into itself....they are going to focus that investment on technology and innovation to maximize efficiency"

I strongly disagree with this.

They are going to invest to maximize ROI.

What that thing is, isn't the same for every company, or even for the same company at a different time.

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:11 PM | Reply

Let's assume I own a starbucks in Durango, Colorado with 18 (some full time but most part time) employees and I make a net operating income of $50K on that store.

I am going to look at the maximum return I can get by looking at all the alternatives to increase NOI.

expand hours
invest into equipment that replaces people
reduce hours and get rid of people
raise prices
lower prices
etc.

the list of options is long......but I'm going to do whatever I can that is going to maximize my NOI.

If the numbers suggest I'd maximize my NOI with more people....then more people it is
If the numbers suggest I'd maximize my NOI with fewer people....then fewer people it is

You can raise my tax rates or lower them.....I'm still going to maximize my NOI.

#191 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:17 PM | Reply

"It won't stop."

Probably not.

And it probably won't be addressed solely through the tax code either.

But addressing the "perverse incentives" in the tax code is still a good idea.

#192 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:18 PM | Reply

-I strongly disagree with this.
They are going to invest to maximize ROI

How do you see most companies doing this? By putting more workers into a store or less?

What conclusions are being drawn with companies with automated checkouts, self ordering kiosks, closing inside dining altogether, etc.?

What does that tell you with regards to how much they see the future with workers?

#193 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:21 PM | Reply

"Let's assume I own a starbucks in Durango, Colorado with 18 (some full time but most part time) employees and I make a net operating income of $50K on that store."

Then you ain't no billionaire!

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:21 PM | Reply

Before anybody tries to jump into this...please confirm you understand and comprehend the statement below.....

"You can't stop the innovation of new technologies that will generate these efficiencies that ultimately runs a low-skilled worker out of job."

I have issue with addressing capital gains tax rates vs income tax rates. I've always conceded that's an issue.

But it doesn't address my statement regarding innovation and how it will be punitive towards the bottom 20%.

You are shackled to the notion that changing tax rates addresses that challenge.

It doesn't and none of you seem to understand that.

#171 | Posted by eberly

That's why a responsible government would TAX those who profit from getting rid of human workers and use that money to fund education and training so that we dont become a nation of insanely rich happy people living in fortresses to protect themselves from the mobs of desperate and angry poor people with no hopes of bettering their lives.

Replacing jobs with technology is fine, as long as you're creating alternate means to keep society from slipping into the abyss, like education or andrew yangs idea of paying everyone enough to exist.

#195 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-27 02:22 PM | Reply

"How do you see most companies doing this? By putting more workers into a store or less?"

Depends on any number of variables.
One of which is the tax burden for whatever path they go down.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:24 PM | Reply

-Replacing jobs with technology is fine,

Thanks for your approval of a practice that's existed for at least 150 years in this country.

I understand what you want....for companies to be taxed more heavily.

The govt takes that extra money and invests it into education, re-training, etc so they have somewhere else to go for employment.

Again, this isn't my point.

My point is that you can't stop the very practice that generates this unfortunate worker and his lot in life with tax rates.

You might have a solution for that worker once he's kicked to the curb (although unrealistic politically) but it doesn't change the first act that puts him there.

#197 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:31 PM | Reply

"Depends on any number of variables.
One of which is the tax burden for whatever path they go down."

So you want to reduce the tax deduction for investment into technology and innovation and increase the tax deduction for payroll expenses?

Something like that?

This is fun.....

what about paper clips? new toilets for the restrooms?

Can the company deduct that or is that not a good thing....considering all the fairness of everything????

#198 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:33 PM | Reply

"If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions."

You think?

Larry Ellison is making a decent salary because of unions?

#199 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 02:40 PM | Reply

I understand what you want....for companies to be taxed more heavily.

The govt takes that extra money and invests it into education, re-training, etc so they have somewhere else to go for employment.

Again, this isn't my point.

My point is that you can't stop the very practice that generates this unfortunate worker and his lot in life with tax rates.

You might have a solution for that worker once he's kicked to the curb (although unrealistic politically) but it doesn't change the first act that puts him there.

#197 | Posted by eberly

It's only unrealistic politically because they party people like you keep voting for wont allow it to happen.

What's the republican solution to the rich getting richer through automation and the working class slipping into jobless desperation?

#200 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-27 02:45 PM | Reply

"I understand what you want....for companies to be taxed more heavily."

Actually I would like to see companies taxed differently.

#201 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:50 PM | Reply

-What's the republican solution to the rich getting richer through automation and the working class slipping into jobless desperation?

I'm not counting on them to come up with one. It's a 150+ year trend.

You're not understanding how long this problem has been occurring. You just figured it out that it's been a real problem since the cotton gin and advancements in countless other technologies.

The working class is always going to have some of it under threat from a technological advancement.

There is no stopping it.

My point ends there.

Now you can cry in your Truly over it all you want, speakstupid. I don't give a ----.

#202 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 02:50 PM | Reply

Larry Ellison is making a decent salary because of unions?
#199 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Larry Ellison
Salary: $41.5 million (2017)
Net worth: $100.88 billion (2022)

#203 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:52 PM | Reply

"The working class is always going to have some of it under threat from a technological advancement."

If you want that threat list to be complete:
Globalization is a "technological advancement."
Tax code is a "technological advancement" too.

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'm not counting on them to come up with one. It's a 150+ year trend."

LOL you just ignore Nixon going to China, Globalization, and changes to the tax code that happened since 1975!

The quote is:
Since 1975...

The quote is not:
Since 1875...

#205 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 02:59 PM | Reply

So a job moves from America to China or Mexico, where someone does the same work for pennies on the dollar of what the American worker made.

That's a technology innovation, Eberly?

#206 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 03:05 PM | Reply

-LOL you just ignore Nixon going to China, Globalization, and changes to the tax code that happened since 1975!

nope

I've played with you enough today, snoofy. You'll notice that every time you show up and address me everyone else leaves.

speakstupid tries to keep up and make the reason for all his life's ills.

but that's about it. Madbomber sure as hell isn't interested in arguing with you. He's rather go at it with Corky, or Clown.

But not you.

#207 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 03:07 PM | Reply

offshoring is not technology. It's another threat to the value of a worker's job.

I was narrowing my comments to technology advancements....not off-shoring.

Could tax incentives/disincentives be implemented to stop that?

Entirely different argument.

#208 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-27 03:09 PM | Reply

Technology isn't the only thing driving down wages, Eberly.

When it comes to Globalization, technology does not automate anything. It just makes labor less expensive. That's not innovation.

#209 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 03:11 PM | Reply

"I was narrowing my comments to technology advancements....not off-shoring."

Felt more like you were widening the scope of technology. To the point of ignoring choices to offshore jobs for simple profit motive reasons. To the point of ignoring changes in the tax code purposed to make the rich richer.

#210 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 03:14 PM | Reply

#203

I know. Unions...amiright?

#211 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 03:17 PM | Reply

"That's a technology innovation, Eberly?"

That's globalization, my friend.

I know it's something that could be hard to stomach for a national socialist. Small n, small s.

#212 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 03:18 PM | Reply

"-LOL you just ignore Nixon going to China, Globalization, and changes to the tax code that happened since 1975!"

The biggest changes to the tax code occurred in 1986.

WTF are you talking about? Making ---- up again?

#213 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 03:19 PM | Reply

"since 1975"

"in 1986"

Funny how those statements are in agreement, but for some reason you don't think we are.

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Madbomber sure as hell isn't interested in arguing with you. He's rather go at it with Corky, or Clown."

I am.

But truth be told, it's hard to argue with uneducated people.

Talking economics at Drudge is akin to talking world history at the First Baptist Church of Possum Pouch, Mississippi.

They ain't many who gonna get it.

#215 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 03:22 PM | Reply

madbomber is just trolling.

Socialism discussion in 3...2...1...

#216 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-05-27 03:22 PM | Reply

"Funny how those statements are in agreement, but for some reason you don't think we are."

When you find the time to take an economics course...then comment on economics. And your comments will be, "holy ----, Madbomber, you were right."

And I will say to you, "you're welcome."

#217 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 03:23 PM | Reply

"madbomber is just trolling."

I don't understand.

Is trolling the act of pointing out when people are wrong?

#218 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-05-27 03:24 PM | Reply

I don't understand.

That's your whole schtick, guy.

#219 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-05-27 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Did things that happened in 1986 happen "Since 1975?"

#220 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-27 03:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort