Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

It is a good quote and sums it up well, though to be fair to Ace, I see no aspirations towards "superior" justification coming from him. He pretty much throws out a net and drags in whatever he thinks might work.

 

And that's where Ayn Rand meets the Republican Party of today. William F. Buckley Jr. is rolling in his grave.

 

If the major benefactors of the Bush tax cuts and the financial bailouts were actually pumping their gains back into the economy and being the "job creators" they are touted to be, the economy would be thriving. As it is, they are hoarders of wealth. They drain value from society. Small business owners, the ones who truly are job creators, should not be identifying with them. If they do, they have fallen for the Big Con Game that is the Tea Party. American Conservatism has devolved into a racket funneling money to the already obscenely rich, using race and religion as props to distract the majority of their supporters from the fact that they never, ever deliver on their economic promises.

A tax on consumption would only serve to hurt the middle and lower classes. They must spend most or all of their income on the necessities of life. Fortunate ones have a bit left over for comforts and luxuries. Taxing their consumption leaves them even less to spend to help drive the economy (or improve their lot in life).

The ultra rich, even those living lavishly, are spending a much lower percentage of their assets. Removing income tax and taxing consumption would lower their tax burden, relative to the middle and lower classes.

The European Union has just recently voted to start taxing financial speculation transactions. Why not? There's a sales tax on almost every other sort of purchase. Makes sense to me. Maybe it will cause some investors to look for long term investments and take some of the volatility out of the market.

Robin Hood Rising: Grassroots Campaign Spurs EU Parliament to Tax Financial Speculation | Alternet

 

Going so far as to have successfully weaved this "virtue" of selfishness into the moral fabric of Christian ideology in the same way they have successfully weaved in the virtues of individualism, guns, and intolerance.

Clever devils.

 

That, my friend, is the true American Horror Story.

 

But, but .. the baby Jesus wants me to have stuff and if I don't take it it's like throwing all that bounty back in his face, which would be disrespectful 'n shit. Fucking commie terrorists.

 

I agree in a pure form on a large scale it does not exist. Generally the concept to me is when market participants are free to enter/exit a market based on their choice where price is determined by supply and demand - as opposed to being artificially manipulated by government, market makers or other individuals or entities with enough power to manipulate the natural forces within a market. For example, one would think Ebay is a form of Free market Capitalism, and I think it is to a large degree, however, corporate Ebay can and to a degree does influence market behaviors outside of market forces.
--- merged: Dec 18, 2012 at 12:00 PM ---

My interpretation of the question was that the data suggested the need for termination. In this case the data would be at odds with my Judeo-christian values - so I would fire the person but try to do so in a compassionate or empathetic manner - I would seek some type of personal mental balance in the decision, I am not cold and ruthless, probably why I will never be a billionaire..

I use the word "fire" when terminating an employer/employee relationship. Otherwise, I see it as a scheduling issue. The concept of "layoff" is not clear to me. Either you are "fired" or you know when to report to work - in my book. I was "indefinitely laid-off" once - I wasted about 6 months of my life waiting around to get a call back. I would never do that to a person - I either need you or I don't - if circumstances change, I will call but I don't expect the person to be sitting there waiting.
--- merged: Dec 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM ---

I understand where you are coming from. You are playing games with semantics. "Faulty generalization"??? You gave a definition of greed, it fits Americans in general - but it is faulty. O.k., whatever you say.
--- merged: Dec 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM ---

If my bank does something I don't like or won't accept, I change banks. I have done it many times. Same with the phone/cable companies - that is why I like choice. The problem is when the government restricts choice. So, when cable company has the government approved monopoly in an area the cable company can do what government allows it to get away with - and if the company feed government adequately government gives the company what it wants - screw the taxpayer and the consumer! In a free market, people have choice.

 

All tax systems have some weaknesses, none are perfect - but I prefer taxation on consumption not labor, income, investment gains, interest, royalties, assets, etc.

Most markets require self-regulation - even centralized controlled markets. It is impossible for regulators to regulate every transaction - the importance of choice is paramount. Companies that engage in unproductive behaviors, like cheating/fraud won't survive long when people have choice. That combined with a judicial type policing mechanism to compensate victims financially will all but guarantee proper "regulation".

Two ways to look at this. First, these "mom and pop" businesses you refer to, often do not serve their communities well. I grew up in the Chicago suburbs and I had family that lived in the city - the grocers in the inner-city where filthy, they over charged and they had poor selection - most drove 1/2 hour or more to shop. so if Wal-mart comes in and puts these folks out of business - I say good. Second, even given big box stores, most consumer spending is done outside of these big box stores. Or, for example read a McDonald's financial statement and realize as big as they are, they really only have a small percentage of the fast-food market in the US - and most people still prefer the option of a locally owned restaurant that is clean, offers good service and good food every know and then - these folks easily compete with the big guys.
--- merged: Dec 18, 2012 at 12:28 PM ---

This is a chicken/egg type question - what came first greed or excessive consumerism? I say greed. It appears you are saying people are lead into becoming greedy.
--- merged: Dec 18, 2012 at 12:41 PM ---

You are most likely correct.

I know I don't understand this point you are making. I agree there are exceptions to generalizations and that there can be examples of outliers that can lead to faulty characterizations of a group - otherwise if the collective is described by a characteristic most within the group can be described by the characteristic, especially given the law of large numbers, which is applicable in this case. I still don;t know your answer - are Americans greedy or not? I think the answer is obviously, yes. And to me it is so obvious that no informed reasonable person can make an argument to the contrary.

Yes, it is dismissive. A child-like response. I think, in a more sophisticated manner, you do it regularly. I have no pretense of being sophisticated, I just try to communicate clearly and directly.

I think capitalism implies "profit motive" - I think profit by definition implies excess or more than what is needed. Not facile argument.

 

You use the word "wrong", I would understand if you used a different word to describe the question - but a question can not be "wrong" - a question is a question. Perhaps the question is not Socratic as it was intended, but it is still a question and it has an answer. In a similar circumstance, when presented with a Socratic question that would not lead me to the questioners intended conclusion, I would answer the question and then explain why I am lead to a different conclusion. For example a questioner asks - Is it raining outside? thinking it would lead me to conclude that if I go outside I would get wet - my answer would be, yes it is raining, but if I go outside I have a covered patio and the rain would not fall on me under the covered patio. Your process is confusing to me. It is like you are trying to say it is not raining when it is.

I think one of the primary reasons people communicate is to better understand each other. It is not personal. It is not a reflection of being smart or not smart - it is a function of my style of stating when I don't understand - others have different styles of addressing this - but we all are in the state of not clearly understanding another if we regularly communicate. Are you reading something into it that is not there?

When I get this type of response I am reminded of Einstein and



What is most complicated often has simple answers.

Here is what I know and here is why all this is related to the OP. 47% and many more perceive themselves differently than what they actually are - Democrats do a better job of focusing their message on these false images. Hence, you get the billionaire liberal fighting for social justice and the general public believing the b.s. or you get the narcissistic-like President who has people believing he is doing it all for others.

 

Which question?

They would be to those who do not understand.

Greed for one, capitalism for another, how about profit motive? DC in an earlier post in this thread brought up teachers, nurses, firefighters, etc.,in an effort to show these people are above the profit motive and are not greedy. They are American and no more or less greedy than the rest of the population - they do their work to get paid - there are volunteers and charity work being done but this is not what we are talking about.

If Einstein interacted with you in an attempt to explain his theory you would get hung-up on some trivial semantic matter (pun intended).

Americans are generally greedy capitalist pigs. And I say that in a loving endearing manner, because I am one and I love the system and its players. I do not pretend it is something it is not or that I am something that I am not.

I say what I mean, I describe what I see and you try to telling me that I mean something different and that I don't see what I actually see. It is raining and you are trying to tell me it is not - figuratively speaking (I feel an odd need to include the word "figurative" for a reason that is clear to me but may not be clear to you).

A poor debate technique, attempting to cloud a train of thought with useless diversionary tactics and then concluding the train of thought is off track. When an exchange is in writing all that is needed is to re-read what was written!

 

In my view Americans are greedy.

It is not an issue with me, I think it is clearly true.

In the context of American energy consumption greed is applicable. In the context of caloric intake the term greed is applicable. Those were two examples given, I could give a long list. But it would be pointless to give more examples because it seems you disagree with the premise. Is it your view that "greed" is a word that can not be used to describe the American population?

I am using the word "greed" to describe the American people, in a convoluted manner you argue that the word can not be used as an adjective in this case if I understand your point of view correctly. Secondarily, given the concept of "greed" is subjective - no clearly defined threshold for when the condition is true or not, you try to argue based on my measure I am incorrect - which can not be possible. You make both arguments which further confuses the matter.

 

I find myself thinking about projective identification. Others must embody the reality projected onto them.

 

things are certainly much easier that way, alistair. one doesn't have to read or pay any attention to others at all. one can just decide what they think and proceed from there. it makes the idea of the straw man more expansive i guess. brings it into wackier territory.