Senate rejects obummer jobs bill

[fskimospy]

I disagree. While it's true that through history and even the history of the US, the majority has been able to control the minority without regard to rights, that doesn't make it ok. That logic is the same reason that the right believes it can deny gay people equal marriage rights or force Christianity on the rest of the country and violate separation of church and state. Hell, the psychotically far right supreme court decided to declare money equal to speach so that those with more money can purchase more first amendment rights. Majority rules may be the way it's often done, doesn't make it ok. I just want proportionate rights. The top 1% gets taxed equal to the piece of the pie they get, about 43% currently.

It has nothing to do with whether or not it is okay, good policy, whatever. The question was if such a thing can be done, and it absolutely can. I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[xj0hnx]

It has nothing to do with whether or not it is okay, good policy, whatever. The question was if such a thing can be done, and it absolutely can. I don't see what the big deal is.

You seriously "can see what the big deal is" with using the power of the majority to take away from the minority? Wow.

 

[fskimospy]

You seriously "can see what the big deal is" with using the power of the majority to take away from the minority? Wow.

/facepalm

Of course I can see problems with majority power taking away things from the minority. My issue was with people who inexplicably think that such a thing is not permissible under the American system of government, which is clearly untrue.

 

[dainthomas]

You seriously "can see what the big deal is" with using the power of the majority to take away from the minority? Wow.

He's not saying it's "morally" right or wrong. He's saying that the Constitution of the United States gives the majority great power over the minority. Are you arguing that fact?

 

[xj0hnx]

He's not saying it's "morally" right or wrong. He's saying that the Constitution of the United States gives the majority great power over the minority. Are you arguing that fact?

Did I say I was arguing it? No, so what are you going on about now? Oh ...nothing? as you were.

 

[fskimospy]

Did I say I was arguing it? No, so what are you going on about now? Oh ...nothing? as you were.

So what was your point?

 

[xBiffx]

The hypocrisy from the leftists in this thread is overfuckenwhelming. They are all for the minority, all for making sure that everyone gets a fair share of everything. Except when the minority is the rich. Then its the constitution making everything unfair. This is hilarious.

 

[fskimospy]

The hypocrisy from the leftists in this thread is overfuckenwhelming. They are all for the minority, all for making sure that everyone gets a fair share of everything. Except when the minority is the rich. Then its the constitution making everything unfair. This is hilarious.

The poor reading comprehension from you in this thread is overfuckenwhelming. Why don't you try and figure out what leftists actually believe instead of relying on a fever dream?

 

[xBiffx]

The poor reading comprehension from you in this thread is overfuckenwhelming. Why don't you try and figure out what leftists actually believe instead of relying on a fever dream?

I read just fine and it seems that the left could care less about the 1% lack of voting representation simply because they are the elite 1%. But the minority vote that doesn't have much and doesn't pay any taxes, that's what we need to worry about. Get real.

 

[fskimospy]

I read just fine, and it seems that the left could care less about the 1% lack of voting representation simply because they are the elite 1%. But the minority vote that doesn't have much and doesn't pay any taxes, that's what we need to worry about. Get real.

*sigh* No. This is a pretty common thing from you now. You read poorly, go off on some outraged tangent, and then furiously battle to the death over it. You're getting boring.

 

[SamurAchzar]

The top 1% gets taxed equal to the piece of the pie they get, about 43% currently.

It's just that this 43% is not in income, but in equity. The only thing that has to be amended in regards to the rich is equalization of labor tax and capital gains tax. Are you suggesting people start paying taxes according to their equity, not income?

 

[Ausm]

The poor reading comprehension from you in this thread is overfuckenwhelming. Why don't you try and figure out what leftists actually believe instead of relying on a fever dream?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[xBiffx]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

So that's the symbol for circle jerk. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[senseamp]

I guess no jobs recovery as long as GOP is in position to obstruct.

 

[woolfe9999]

So its fine if we all vote to confiscate 99% of all of eskimospy's income.
Cause I mean, hey, we all voted for it, you had your vote, we had ours.
/sarcasm

You think that's a good way for society to run?
That's sickening to me.

Actually you'd probably have to amend the Constitution to do that. Passing a law aimed at taxing a specific individual or group of named individuals is mostly likely an unlawful Bill of Attainder under Article 1, section 9. So you'd need the super-majority necessary to amend the Constitution if you wanted a special "Eskimospy tax."

There was some discussion of this in conjunction with TARP, where the idea of imposing a special tax on bailout recipients was bandied about, but the consensus was that this was most likely unconstitutional.

 

[xj0hnx]

I guess no jobs recovery as long as GOP is in position to obstruct.

You really think that if some law isn't passed then businesses can't create jobs? LOL.

 

[woolfe9999]

So that's the symbol for circle jerk. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Eskimospy correctly explained a point of elementary civics - that in a democracy, a sufficiently large majority (simple majority in most cases, super majority in a case that requires amending the Constitution) can do essentially whatever it wishes. You straw manned this as him favoring confiscatory policies that he never said he favored. You got smacked down for this, and rightfully so.

Just keeping it real.

- wolf

 

[Jhhnn]

It's just that this 43% is not in income, but in equity. The only thing that has to be amended in regards to the rich is equalization of labor tax and capital gains tax. Are you suggesting people start paying taxes according to their equity, not income?

I think he's suggesting that the income tax rates of various groups should reflect their equity in a general way.

If your after expenses investment income grows faster than your tax rate & inflation combined, you start to come out way ahead of everybody else, provided you have sufficient capital to generate excess income. That's just the way it works.

And that's why we see the enormous inequality of today.

The notion that it's beneficial to anybody other than the investor class is absurd. Sometimes I wonder if it really benefits them in anything other than some abstract way or in terms of power. Paying 44% or 33% or 22% of a truly enormous investment generated income won't change the earner's lifestyle in the slightest, because they'll still generate excess income for reinvestment.

 

[Jhhnn]

You really think that if some law isn't passed then businesses can't create jobs? LOL.

And you think that if it is, they won't?

 

[xj0hnx]

And you think that if it is, they won't?

Didn't read it, but some democrats apparently didn't think so. From what I've seen, which admittedly isn't a lot about this bill it wasn't really creating many jobs, but giving states money to help keep some existing ones?

 

[xBiffx]

Eskimospy correctly explained a point of elementary civics - that in a democracy, a sufficiently large majority (simple majority in most cases, super majority in a case that requires amending the Constitution) can do essentially whatever it wishes. You straw manned this as him favoring confiscatory policies that he never said he favored. You got smacked down for this, and rightfully so.

Just keeping it real.

- wolf

Didn't straw man anything. Simply stated that the left like to have it both ways. They cry for the minority and think everyone should have an equal say. Except when the minority is the rich, then the inequality is just part of the system and we shouldn't worry about it or nothing can be done about it cause that's just the way it is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Didn't read it, but some democrats apparently didn't think so. From what I've seen, which admittedly isn't a lot about this bill it wasn't really creating many jobs, but giving states money to help keep some existing ones?

Are we entering some realm of doublespeak, where people keeping jobs is somehow functionally different from creating new ones?

 

[JockoJohnson]

Did anyone consult the Teacher,firefighters and Police man before they were let go?? Didn't think so....

They probably did. Probably went something like this...

"We don't have enough money because the tax money coming in is low. Can you take a pay cut?" And the union response is "NOOOOOO, we have a contract. Stick to it fuckers. We aren't taking a pay cut."

And then some people had to be let go.

 

[woolfe9999]

Didn't straw man anything. Simply stated that the left like to have it both ways. They cry for the minority and think everyone should have an equal say. Except when the minority is the rich, then the inequality is just part of the system and we shouldn't worry about it or nothing can be done about it cause that's just the way it is.

Reading that into Eskimospy's comments is problematic at best.

In any event, there is no hypocrisy. Minority groups who are poor, discriminated against or suffer some other kind of basic disadvantage aren't the same as the minority of people who control the vast majority of wealth in society. Those people don't need help or advocacy because their power is vastly beyond their number. Wealth is power, particularly in this society where there are few limits on the influence of money in politics.

I can't believe that you're actually arguing that the championing of minorities who are poor and/or discriminated against or disabled mandates that we treat the wealthy and powerful similarly or else face the charge of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be treating two groups who are similarly situated differently, not two groups who are different and even opposite in every fundamental way imaginable.

Oh, the poor, downtrodden millionaires and billionaires. We must weep for them. Are you even serious?

 

[xBiffx]

Oh, the poor, downtrodden millionaires and billionaires. We must weep for them. Are you even serious?

Reading that into my comments is problematic at best.