waitforufo

11 hours ago, scherado said:

What are you attempting to convey with the quality "white" in the third sentence? (The "old" descriptor indicates a prejudiced/bigoted maladjustment with respect to age; the "man" characteristic, a.k.a. genitalia, indicates a sexist prejudiced/bigoted maladjustment with respect to sex-type.)

The constitution was written by white people, thus making it illegitimate.  Old because those white men lived a long time ago and are now all dead.  Man because women did not participate again making it illegitimate.  By using the slogans "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy",  I believe this is what BLM is trying to communicate.  

9 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

waitforufo,

Could you possibly offer some points you wish to discuss? Currently, this thread looks like little more than an attempt at soap boxing. 

 

 I find it provocative that at a liberal arts college like William & Mary that students would shut down free speech particularly when the speaker is an alumna from the ACLU.  Also, the chanting of "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, "liberalism is white supremacy" to be rather shocking.  Such slogans antithetical to our core beliefs and foundations as a nation.  My hope is that these students are all expelled from William & Mary.  What do you think?

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

One protest does not a revolution make. Do you think it does?

Clarification please. Are you conflating brownshirts with Black Lives Matter, or are your referencing a subset of Black Lives Matter. The distinction appears to be an important one.

Can you explain what you mean by this statement? It can be interpreted in many ways and so it would be easy to go off on a pointless tangent if one chose the wrong one.

They say they have a revolution, and this is how revolutions start.

BLM is shutting down the free speech of our nation's greatest advocate of free speech the ACLU.  I would not be surprised if they were burning books next. 

I defined my meaning for that statement above.

6 hours ago, rangerx said:

This is an international forum and as much as you'd like to believe it, it's not the constitution of the free world. It's an archaic document violently achieved in protest of the crown (how ironic is that).

Once again, iterating the false narrative that ANTIFA is inherently violent, therefore all liberals are inherently violent. Trump tried that and failed, as do you. Doubling down only makes it twice as absurd. Is there no abyss too deep to stoop?

A lot of outsiders are looking in as Americans pit themselves against each other in ridiculous, hypocritical, contentious and often deadly ways. For lack of a better analogy, your constitution is being perverted in the same manner the jihad perverts the Quran. Liberal, conservative... who cares, y'all look the same to me (to use a common American meme about others).

Free speech and freedom of the press are the cornerstones of your constitutional 1st Amendment, while your unhinged leader disrespects both on a daily basis as policy. Even calling for the persecution of those who lawfully protest his actions, yet nary a peep from the malcontent that so loudly claims to be a rigid constitutionalist. Heaven forbid had Obama done that, you'd be screaming impeachment from the rooftops and rounding up your 2nd Amendment buddies, huh? Well, maybe that's a little extreme and don't proclaim it hasn't been said by others, but definitely chanting "Lock him up", right?

The document that was a protest of the crown was the Declaration of Independence.  A document conceived in liberalism.  But liberalism is white supremacy right?

ANTIFA by it's own admission is inherently violent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

No our constitution is being ignored.  

Site me a statute for a crime committed by anyone and I will be the first to say "Lock him up."

4 hours ago, swansont said:

In what way is the US Constitution involved with the event that was described?

Let's see, the article I referenced said BLM was chanting  "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution."

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think the OP is an example of a drunk post that started sober: 

A brooding anger and resentment that the arguments are continually refuted, with intelligent eloquence... Reach for the JD and a tumbler and pour and gulp, aha, this will stump the buggers, another gulp and reach for the laptop "Google, what was that thing I saw the other day?" another gulp, refill and repeat...

Two hours later and we're lucky the title isn't "Ha got ya ya smugg bastards".

Not a JD drinker myself.  I prefer single malt scotch.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th

Quote

Students affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement crashed an event at the College of William & Mary, rushed the stage, and prevented the invited guest—the American Civil Liberties Union's Claire Gastañaga, a W & M alum—from speaking.

Ironically, Gastañaga had intended to speak on the subject, "Students and the First Amendment."

The disruption was livestreamed on BLM at W&M's Facebook page. Students took to the stage just a few moments after Gastañaga began her remarks. At first, she attempted to spin the demonstration as a welcome example of the kind of thing she had come to campus to discuss, commenting "Good, I like this," as they lined up and raised their signs. "I'm going to talk to you about knowing your rights, and protests and demonstrations, which this illustrates very well. Then I'm going to respond to questions from the moderators, and then questions from the audience."

It was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, "ACLU, you protect Hitler, too." They also chanted, "the oppressed are not impressed," "shame, shame, shame, shame," (an ode to the Faith Militant's treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, though why anyone would want to be associated with the religious fanatics in that particular conflict is beyond me), "blood on your hands," "the revolution will not uphold the Constitution," and, uh, "liberalism is white supremacy."

So liberalism is dead.  Long live the brownshirts of Black Lives Matter.  Who needs that old white man's document, The Constitution of the United States", anyway.

1 hour ago, Sicarii said:

Having said that, semi-autos can be modified and converted into full autos. You can also obtain parts of a fully automatic weapon off the darknet and assemble it by watching a YouTube video -- it is actually very easy to do and doesn't require much expertise beyond basic ability to take apart and put stuff together.

There are gun control laws against converting semi-autos to fully automatic weapons.  Are you suggesting that gun control laws are broken?  

7 hours ago, swansont said:

What a loathsome point of view. By this reasoning a mother (or father) who stays at home and cares for their child(ren) is not a contributor to society if they have no income, they pay no tax, but have any sort of subsidy from the government.

No I believe such people are raising the next generation of government dependency.  Girls that watch their parent or parents struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their head don't go looking for a baby daddy when they want to be come independent of their parent's government subsidy.  They look for a husband with a job.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

A military veteran, or law enforcement official who has to undergo expensive rehabilitation at taxpayer expense, or can't work anymore, is a non-contributor to society, because s/he costs more than s/he will pay in taxes.

People who sacrifice in the service of there country have made there contribution.  Why don't you get that?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

As far as the question of the OP goes, this attitude gets my vote.

 Thanks for your vote.

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

So there is no difference to those that got into this situation but struggle to get out?

Sure there is but the problem is that government subsidy is a trap.  The benefits of staying in are greater than the benefits of getting out.  Besides why be one of those suckers that do when you can simply get.  

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Note that subsidies are not just blanket handouts for moochers. 

Not just?  Well at least you recognize that such subsidies include the attribute of being handouts to moochers.  

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Our system doesn't differentiate, and sometimes, the availability of these programs turns people who simply need help, into moochers, who have no desire to better themselves.

I appreciate the good intentions of those promoting government support.  Results however are more important than good intentions.  These programs corrupt people.  They rob them of the dignity of being a contributor to society.  It robs them of the ability to truthfully say "I did my part in making society a better place."  Instead it turns them into people without shame competing for every handout available.  Public housing, check.  EBT card, check. Obama phone, check.  Free school meal program, check.  Free obamacare, check.  Earned income credits, check.  My guess is I have only mentioned a few of the available hand outs.  

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Once upon a time welfare was seen as shameful, now you see kids going on welfare because their parents make them follow rules at home. Rules they don't have to follow when they live in assisted housing and drop out of school..

All they need is a baby daddy.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Is the system perfect ? Of course not.
But I'd hate to live in a country without it.

There are alternatives.  We have tried those alternative and they did wonderful things.  The  politician that tried them was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  They produced tremendous national infrastructure.  Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, the TVA, National park Improvements through the CCC and more.  People were paid to work and learn skills instead of sitting on their asses bitching about their need for more handouts.  People had to move and live in places like Bolder City, Electric City, but they worked, learned, and contributed.  Here is one of those towns my mother was raised in.  Portneuf Park in Pocatello Idaho which was built for railroad workers due to a housing shortage during WWII.

Doesn't look like much, but the people that lived their all had jobs and the dignity that comes with them.  

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Yes, like corporate welfare for those who pay no taxes, get bailed out or move offshore. It's all those social welfare non contributors fault, right?

The government gets what it asks for when creating the tax code.

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Letting social welfare recipients starve in the streets solves the whole problem, right?

I said they should be shamed not starved.  

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

What you suggest is how India runs. A socio-political caste system. That's the democracy your strive?

Government handouts are creating the socio-political caste system.  Those that do and those that don't.  The political class and the rest of us.  Take off your blinders.  

18 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What defines a "non-contributor"; is that anyone who doesn't pass your individual character test?  Everyone you don't see a measurable value for? 

In business, a non-contributor is someone who's efforts are not significant in meeting the the goals of a project.

A non contributor to society?  Well if your housing is subsidized by the public, you have an EBT card, your kids are on a free school meal program, you have an obama phone, your obamacare premiums are subsidized, and/or you receive earned income tax credits, and you do not pay taxes in excess of all of this public funding, then you are a non-contributor.    

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Individual success and cooperation in context of managing a government are complimentary ideas. Governments serve the many by design. There being no "I" in team doesn't prevent exceptional individual performance. Rather a stronger unified and empowered team produces more exceptional performances. I have yet to see a retired General or professional athletics manager complain their teams were too internally cooperative. 

In the military, recruits often wash out of boot camp.  In sports, players are often cut from the team roster.  There is a "I" in win and those of high accomplishment inspire those of lesser ability to strive harder.

Come on, this is not a difficult concept.  Have you never worked with low performers?  Do low performers inspire others to greater achievement, or do the co-workers of lower performers do less?  Well as a manager I can tell you that low performers  inspire their coworkers to do less.  Why should a good performer strive to achieve more, when a low performer achieves so little without consequence.  This is particularly true if the low performers compensation is equivalent to high performer.  That is why low performers are let go.  

Non contributors should be ashamed of themselves.  Contributors should feel free to shame them as well. 

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Some people have a hunter gather complex of sorts. Those with that complex don't realize the value of a society. The pull yourself up by your own boot straps mentality doesn't recognize the increased potential of cooperation. Alone no one can build all the components and then assemble a house, car, plane, computer, and etc. Everyone relies on everyone in the modern age. Only one living in a stick house in the wilderness gathering all their own food can truly claim they are responsible for everything they have. Societies, large groups working together, build cities, event technology, transform the environment, and etc NOT individuals alone. 

Cooperation.  You must have been the type of student that really enjoyed working on group projects in your course work.  My experience with such projects is that few on the team actually contribute but all take credit. 

As an engineering manager, I have managed multi-million dollar projects spanning hardware, firmware, and software.  The hardware development aspects included DC, RF, Microwave, and Digital design.  Some of these aspects I have little or no competence in.  So I think I appreciate the importance of cooperation.  If I didn't I wouldn't be where I am today.  In business cooperation however there is an intense focus on contribution.  Those that contribute most to the cooperation excel and are promoted.  Those that contribute little, are removed from the cooperation.  So yes cooperation is important, but contribution determines both team and individual success or failure.  

What determines individual success or failure in your concept of cooperation? Is it permitted or are non-contributors simply allowed to be compensated hangers on?    

Socialism fails for a reason.  

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

Bullshit, it's not your precious money to control after it's spent merely because you claimed to have worked for it, princess. It's the government's money.

Claimed I worked for it? Well If I didn't work for it who did? If that is not my money merely because I worked for it then how can anyone claim that any money they make is theirs? I guess it must all be the governments money and the amount I take home is merely a subsidy from the government. If it's the government's money why bother with representative government? If  It's the government's money the government can spend it however it wants.  I'm sure the political class loves people like you.

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

Your receive services from police, fire etc from healthy people, able to work because of a health care system. Yet, police brutality and corruption remains and you say/do nothing about it.

And yet I did all those things before obamacare.  Those healthy people you talk about had health care before obamacare because they had jobs. Now they have less money because they are paying more for health care due to the fact that they are now also paying the insurance premiums of others.  

This topic is not about police brutality and corruption. If you would like to discuss that open another topic.

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

The vacuum which is  your economic vision of the country is flawed. You drive on roads, camp in parks, visit libraries, churches and museums.

And I pay taxes for all of those things and I'm not complaining about it.  I am receiving goods and services for those taxis I pay.  

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

I have no kids...

 Thank you for that.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You don't have insurance?

If you have health insurance, you are paying for the health care of others. If you have homeowner's insurance, you are paying for home care of others. etc. etc.

I have already corrected myself on this one.  I'm paying not only my insurance premiums, I'm paying the insurance premiums of others through my taxes.  Those others should be paying their own insurance premiums.  

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Republican believe* the same thing. They just tend to want to spend more of it on the military.

I receive a service from the military.  The military defends my nation and it's interests.  What good or service am I receiving from those who's insurance premiums I am paying for with my taxes?  

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What article of or amendment to the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness?

 It is not in the constitution.  The constitution guarantees my right to property which is essentially the same thing. So my property is mine and not the accumulation of luck to be distributed by government.  The pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right of all people recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Where and how did he acquire a college education? It wasn't in any way facilitated by the government and other peoples' tax money, was it?

 He worked and saved his own money.  Does that make him greedy in your mind?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well aren't you the lucky one, you had enough advantages from your social standing, family, access to a good enough education etc...

Congratulations you won the lottery, but instead of being grateful and helping someone else, to be as lucky (or even a tiny bit lucky), you choose to be selfish, instead of humility you choose pride and sneer at those whose only advantage is to be born in your country and you choose to degrade even that advantage.

You're just afraid that karma catches you up; the irony is, it's that very fear that ensures it will.

I think that's Americas biggest problem...

I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but over here in the United States we don't have a Department of Luck.  The US constitution does not guarantee a equal or fair distribution of luck.  I don't believe that any government entity in the US as passed a law regarding the common sharing of luck.  Instead the right to pursue happiness is guaranteed.  It is however up the the individual to catch it.  

You mention the lottery.  Here in my state of Washington they advertise the lottery with the slogan "You can't win if you don't play."   Well I don't play the lottery because it is a suckers bet, but I do actively pursue happiness and I have caught enough to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle.  Any luck that I have received is because I put myself in luck's way.  

One piece of family luck I did have was getting to know my grandfather.  In 1915 at the age of 15 he left his Indian reservation in Oklahoma to make his own way in the world.  In doing so he improved his own own life, got a college education, got married, had five kids, and acquired a modest middle class lifestyle for himself and his family.  When he was 70 he took my two older brothers and I to visit our great uncles and aunts and their offspring on the reservation.  When we finished the visit, by grandfather told my brothers and I "That's what happens to you when you depend on the government and that is why I left the reservation."  So I took that sound wisdom to heart.  That was a decision, not luck.

Quit waiting for the government to give you your fair share of luck.  Life isn't fair.  Hard work is the path to success.  When you see others having good fortune, practice having an immediate response of "Good for them."  Then perhaps all that envy will leave your life. 

58 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Edit: Would it be misleading to say the Democratic concept is that not all Americans deserve to keep the money they earn?

Not misleading at all.  Democrats believe that people, who provide me no goods or services, are entitled to my earnings.  How could I possibly deserve my earnings if there are others who provide me nothing in exchange but are still entitled to to my earnings?

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, if you get the system set up right you can do that and get healthcare for roughly half the price.

What a joke.  There is no way to set up such a system.  Obamacare proves that.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I am also being forced under penalty of law to subsidize your use of roads. So I guess we are even.

You are suggesting that I don't pay for roads.  I do through many taxes.  Particularly gasoline taxes.  Roads are a pay as you use system.  

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

This suggests you don't understand how insurance coverage actually works. You DON'T pay for healthcare for you and your family. You pay for coverage, the cost of which is contingent on the risk pool you share with others.

If my taxes are paying the subsidy for the insurance premiums of others, I'm paying for their health care of others.  If my taxes are paying the cost sharing reduction payments directly to insurance companies, I'm paying for the health care of others.  

Why make it so complicated.  I pay for health care for me and my family.  Why should I be forced under penalty of law to pay for you and yours?  Now I'm sure I'm going to hear all the socialist clap trap about how it's an investment that will make it so the needy can eventually, in the far away future, one day become contributors.  Well that one day never comes.  A common weakness of human nature is to expect that free things stay free.  If all one needs to do to get the necessities of life for free is to remain needy, many people will work hard to say needy.  Being needy is their path to success.  It puts a roof over their head, clothes on their back, food in their belly and now health care.  

Like I said, I have needs too.  I'm self actualizing.  Why isn't self actualizing a right?  It sure is expensive.  Where is my free stuff?  Where are the other people with bottomless pockets we can force to pay for my self actualizing?  Who do I need to vote for to get the goodies I'm entitled to as my birth right?  

I'll make my investments in the stock and bond markets.  Those investments make jobs for people contributing to society.  

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

I listened to a podcast yesterday where they debated this bill longer than the senate will be allowed to

That's okay.  After they pass it they can find out what's in it.  

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You need to start thinking of all the bad things smoking does to you (the smell, the expense, the health issues, the trash, the ashes, the burns...) so you can appreciate not smoking. Smoking needs to be a bad thing in your mind, not something good you're denying yourself. 

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more.  The first of the bad things to think about is your addiction.  Every time you crave a smoke remind yourself that this is what addiction is.  You don't want a cigarette, your addiction want's a cigarette.  Every time you have a cigarette you are guaranteeing that you will feel that addiction craving again.  If you are tired of the craving, you will stop.

The other thing to think about is the timeline of your addition.  Nicotine only stays in the body for about three days.  The primary metabolite of nicotine is cotinine.  Cotinine takes a bit longer to leave your system, about 10 days.  So if you make it two weeks, a month at the outside, your body is free of the addictive substances.  Believe me, you will feel a lot better after two weeks so set your sights on that to start.  

After that you have to cure your psychological addiction.  Things like not associating smoking with drinking tea or as a break from studying.  So come up with other things to do like house work or a walk.  The psychological addiction can be tricky.  I haven't smoked in decades but still occasionally think of smoking.  Like after a good meal.  The difference is that it's a want not an addictive craving.  At times like that I simply tell myself "oh yeah, like I want that monkey on my back again."       

After you are done with your nicotine addiction, you can try shaking your caffeine addiction.  I found caffeine addiction much harder to shake than nicotine.  The headaches are incredible.   

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Milton Freidman died in 2006. He have no idea what he would think of the current state of our econmy or taxation. You do not speak for him. You speak for yourself. You are not a noble winner. It is pointless to bring up the work of others less you plan to explain how you'd like to see them implimented. BTW,  Barrack Obama has a Noble too. I doubt you think that makes him and his positions beyond reproach? Obama's Noble is a useless factiod to this discussion and doesn't add or subtract anything. Either you believe  taxes are too high and should be cut or not. That is what the President and Congress is currently negotiating. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can't simple stand on the floor and state "Milton Freidman has a Noble" over and over again and hope policy materializes. Policy must be written and rhetorically complaining about Obama's deficits and self actualization are nonstarters as they fail to recommend an alternative. In my opinion your behavior on this topic is indicative of the struggles conservatives in the U.S. Congress has had legislatively since gaining control of all the branches of govt. They spent years rhetorically complaining just to complain without honestly considering alternatives. They knew they hated the ACA but never actually wrote an alternative, they knew they hated DACA but never came up with a solution, they knew Obama was too weak towards Iran, Assad, Kim Jong-un, and etc but never bothered to imagine policies which would achieve better outcomes, and etc. What would you like to see done regarding taxes??? That should be an easy question to answer on the 6th page of a Taxation thread.

You seem to think that we had no medical insurance before ACA.  You seem to think that we did not have immigration law before that unconstitutional executive edict DACA.  You seem to think that someone other than the president is responsible for foreign policy. You are obviously completely ignorant on the subject of economics.  I clearly stated my opinion on taxes.  I want less.  Much less.  How could you have possibly missed that from my posts?  

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Give us an example of the Milton Friedman model working long term (over a decade) in a country or even a province or state. Keynesian principles have been attempted numerous times and you are totally ignoring the outcomes in favor of a entirely theoretical perspective. 

You are typing nonsense.  Milton Friedman noted an exception to Keynesian economics in the case of one time tax rebates showing that they were not stimulative because people simply saved the money for things like emergencies.  If the people believe tax cuts are long term they are stimulative.  If you don't believe that, your argument isn't with me, it's with the Nobel prize committee.  

Keynesian economics is the entire basis for government monetary and fiscal policy.  What planet do you live on.  

So if you don't agree with John Maynard Keynes are you a proponent of Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics?

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

You only managed to go two posts without once more unnecessarily and divisively inserting the word liberal into your comments.

What I stated was a simple fact.  I don't see how it was divisive.  

On 9/14/2017 at 8:02 AM, CharonY said:

My guess it is based on his earlier assumption that all deficits are caused by spending and  that all spending is stimulative. However, he did not take into account that deficits are also caused by reduced income (e.g. tax cuts) and not all government spending is stimulative. In a paper from 1990 Aschauer ( Contemporary Economic Policy 8(4):30-46 ) showed that:

I.e. military spending (which saw quite an increase under Bush) is mostly non-stimulative, or potentially disruptive (when the multiplier is below one).

I did not say that "all deficits are caused by spending and  that all spending is stimulative."  I said that all deficit spending is stimulative.  The stimulative effect of deficit spending is basic keynesian economics.  Tax cuts are also stimulative.  Again basic Keynesian economics.  The only exception to that is one time tax rebates.  Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize in Economics for showing that one time tax rebates are not spent but saved.  I really can't believe you people are arguing against Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics is at the center of all politically liberal economic thought.  

If military spending is mostly non-stimulative, why did WWII not make the great depression worse?  Why do recessions almost always follow the end of wars?   

16 hours ago, iNow said:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/obamas-numbers-october-2016-update/

The debt grew because of deficits (spending commitments) which were put in place prior to Obama taking office.

Obama then managed to drastically reduce the deficit amount, a drop of 69%, thus lowering the debt growth amidst an obstinate "just say no to everything" congress.

If you have to lie or misrepresent the truth in order to argue your position, you should consider instead changing your position.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Obama budgets accounted for 6.5 trillion, part of which was due to the mess he inherited. Stop making stuff up.

So you two are claiming that stimulus injected into the economy by George W. Bush was responsible for the economic recovery?  

10 hours ago, swansont said:

9 Trillion? The stimulus was about 1/10 of that.

edit:
https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-obama-s-stimulus-package-3305625

(and, of course, the GOP position for a long while is that the stimulus didn't work)

Or did you mean the actual amount of the deficit? That was ~$6.5 billion in Obama's budgets. But I don't see why the deficit amount matters. It should be total spending, and one should also account for the shrinking of state government spending over that period a well. (but that brings to another GOP talking point, that government spending doesn't create jobs)

Perhaps you should put a bit of effort into studying Keynesian economics.  In Keynesian economics the government manipulates the economy through fiscal and monetary policy.  To stimulate the economy fiscally, the government runs deficits.  Every penny of deficit spending is stimulative.  Obama increased the national debt by more than 9 trillion dollars.  Every penny of that was stimulative.  To stimulate the economy monetarily the government increases the money supply.  To do that the government generally lowers interest rates thereby increasing the money supply.  With interest rates at or near zero the government increases the money supply through quantitative easing where the government buys under performing assets, often worthless, from banks to increase the money supply.  Obama had three rounds of quantitative easing increasing the money supply by over 4 trillion dollars.  So it wasn't just 9 trillion dollars of stimulus, it was 13 trillion dollars worth of stimulus. 

Thirteenth trillion dollars of stimulus, and yet you think tax increases caused the economic recovery. Taxes depress the economy.  Like I said, you should study Keynesian economics.  

2 hours ago, swansont said:

We had a long stretch of economic growth under Obama after (wait for it) taxes on the wealthy were increased.

My guess is that 9 Trillion dollars of stimulative deficit spending had more to do with the economic growth under Obama than taxes on the wealthy did.  I think John Maynard Keynes would agree.  Maybe if taxes hadn't been raised by Obama we wouldn't have had the slowest economic recovery since the great depression.

44 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

OK, when I remove the partisan rhetoric you constantly want to introduce like a fart at a party, I find this is a sentiment we can deal with rationally.

You've always made the assumption that taxes stifle the economy, but always fail to show how, historically. Most of your arguments are for solutions that historically only help the wealthy at the expense of the middle and poor classes. You mention a rising tide helping all boats, and that seems fair to you, because you don't acknowledge how unfair it's been up till now for all the non-yachts. Nobody minds competing fairly, but if you're going to make your sails so big it steals everyone else's wind, or if you're going to make your engines so powerful that it swamps all the smaller craft, then I think the government is the perfect tool for society to remove your stifling influence from the economy. Just like the person in traffic who's causing most of the traffic, you are the problem with our economy.

Go ahead and have your extreme sails. Anything above a certain size and you should pay 90% in taxes.

Seems pretty clear you were waiting for any chance to say THAT, since it's a really goofy response to swanson't point about what actually grows the economy.

  Yes some people have it better than others.  Your goal is income equality.  I'm sure you will be happy when everyone is poor.  That in your eyes will be fair.  Like Venezuela, North Korea, etc. 

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

 We had a long stretch of economic growth under Obama after (wait for it) taxes on the wealthy were increased.

That's why Hillary is president right?

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sarcasm like this (if it's sarcasm) is an indication that you aren't interested in having an actual discussion, and/or have no clue how things actually work. (I don't think it's the latter) Either one responds to a snide comment you don't actually believe is true or has to spend significant effort educating you on something that should be known as a prerequisite for participating in the thread. Either way, though, you've added nothing to the thread.

I think that someone with a yacht, mansion and servants would know all of the additional loopholes available to them that do in fact let them avoid paying a large amount in taxes.

More sarcasm. More wasted space.

Are you trying to tell me that the post following the last moderator's note a page back have not all been sarcasm?  They read that way to me.  I found them all to be sanctimonious as well.  I think they can be all summed up like this... "Oh how during this time of national tragedy can anyone suggest that taxes be cut?!"  Well I'll tell you how.  "A rising tide lifts all boats." -JFK  A growing economy and the increased tax revenues it brings is what the country needs.  What it doesn't need is more taxes stifling the economy.  

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So that's a big NO on answering any of my questions with a meaningful answer. We'll just go with you hovering through life never needing taxes to be used effectively with regard to a national economy of scale, instead of as profit for private ventures.

Now hold on a minute.  I pay my taxes.  I couldn't avoid them even if I wanted to.  As I said before, my government subsidy is the remainder on my pay stub after government taxes.  I pay taxes on my yacht, my mansion,  my motorcycles, my servants.  I pay taxes at the check out and at the pump.  Taxis are woven into every aspect of my life.  I couldn't avoid paying them even if I wanted to.  The government doesn't just ask me to pay taxes, it makes me.  Since I'm not behind bars, I must be paying them.  

How, however, am I to continue keeping all those road makers and pavers, petrochemical workers, yacht makers, slip maintainers, motor vehicle workers, etc. employed if my subsidy is not increased?  I'm keeping up my end of the bargain.  You don't want the economy to collapse do you?  The economy is as dependent on my self actualization needs as I am.

Obviously some of you still think that remainder number on your pay stub actually belongs to you.  That number is simply your subsidy from the government.  A subsidy amount which was likely unfairly determined.  Think of all those people that are in need.  You must think you are better than those needy people because of your abilities.  Shame on you.  You were only lucky and the primary job of government is to distribute the luck evenly.  

I'm sure my subsidy however is a little light.  You see I have needs as well.  When it comes to needs, I always go to the expert on needs, Maslow.  I'm up there at the top self actualizing.  You would be surprised how much money, fast vehicles, and gasoline that requires.  It's astounding actually.  Thank you for pitching in.  I'll let you know when my needs are filled.