Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
thumper 12-Nov-12, 22:17	"... y'mean, you only want to hear lashings of dm?" When I see attempts at arguments like this, it reminds me of middle-school and other clubs I no longer waste my time with. I would expect better from a former CEO.
changeling 12-Nov-12, 22:39	It seems to me that common ground as far as political leanings go has flown out the window for the most part. According to some here the left is destructive, according to others the right is destructive. Where is the start of common ground. What policies on either side have merit to the other at layman levels. It does appear that there was a large backlash against many Republican platforms in regard to social issues, re the disproportionate votes by young women in particular for the Democrats (or Obama if you wish). Other minorities almost always seem to vote Democrat anyway, or am I reading that wrong? All the angst regarding the Benghazi affair, the Petraeus affair, the so called 'war on women' and other social issues (healthcare for one, the race card for another) in the lead up to the election has indeed polarized the US. So my question is where to from here? Will the major parties now learn to work together, both compromising when necessary to get the US back on track as the most productive nation on the planet, liked by others as a 'fair' nation, as it once was (this seems to have slipped quite badly in the past couple of decades). How does this turnaround come about or even start with the way politics has split the country?
dmaestro 12-Nov-12, 23:09	Stinky I actually enjoy our communications looking for common ground. There is some common ground on fiscal issues. And I heard God was dead but never actually attended the funeral. The hateful attitude is in the eye of the beholder. I do use words that trigger that perception on the right but in fact in other circles they are not seen that way. Chaz is a centrist. Thumper, when I refer to conservatives in dismissive terms, I refer to the modern, extremist tea party kind. I like Morning Joe for example, because he is a moderate, thinking conservative. I make no secret of the fact that I consider the tea party destructive and a cancer on American politics. The GOP once was moderate, it is now far too the right. It needs to move back towards the center and away from the tea party. You notice lots of Republicans are saying that, not just me.
dmaestro 12-Nov-12, 23:22	Change, until the right realizes their "news" isn't the same as the truth there is not much that can be done to bridge the gap because they think their "facts" are accurate. I think many in the GOP leadership realize now that the red meat politics that led to the creation and growth of the tea party has gotten out of control. They want to move on and compromise but have been held hostage by the tea party. I always thought this was a throwaway election, that the GOP realized Obama had the advantage and needed to see the tea party lose big as it did so moderates could come back into the GOP. The tea party will continue to suffer defeats except in red states, and efforts to bring back others into the party will eventually result in the end of tea party domination. The GOP lost 2 elections in a row now by wide margins, so their negotiating position isn't that strong. They will have to compromise.
chaz- 13-Nov-12, 07:16	Stinky ... ... I have been making pretty level posts that, for some reason, you and Thumper find fault. I've not cut and pasted long quotes from one-sided dramatists nor have I labored for a strong opposing argument to your posts, yet even my polite responses draw your contempt. I guess this is what you intend. I am not your enemy.
softaire 13-Nov-12, 07:17	Change Thanks for bringing a discussion back to this thread. To try and answer your questions, I will repeat what I have already said in other threads. It seems that Democrats and leftists have won. They have bought and bribed enough people so that this country will now be a one-party ruled country. Sure, the Republicans will win an election here or there, but from now on, the country will be like California... ruled by the Democrats and the unions, despite an occasional Republican governor. To review how that happened: we have raised the poverty level so that more people qualify for welfare. we have increased the number of people on food stamps. we have destroyed the economy and jobs so more people are on unemployment. we have told people we will make working people pay for their health care. we have threatened losing social security and medicare, medicaid.. (let govt. save us). we have had a debt, budget, tax crisis that stifles investment in companies and jobs. we have managed to reduce the value in homes and 401k's. we have managed to raise the cost of energy and are trying to stop energy production. we keep printing money in order to devalue the money people have. we have allowed millions of non-citizens entry to the country and have given them jobs, welfare, unemployment, education, and now promise them instant citizenship. Will we "find common ground" and "work together"? Sure, the establishment will need to do something, but since the liberals control most everything now and have the support of the masses, there will be capitulation... not cooperation. We are now ruled by a one party dictatorship. This will last for awhile until somebody takes control and it becomes a one person dictatorship. As Ben Franklin said: "when the people learn that they can vote themselves money, the Republic is lost".
changeling 13-Nov-12, 07:38	softy That is just a rant, starting with this: "...They have bought and bribed enough people so that this country will now be a one-party ruled country. Sure, the Republicans will win an election here or there, but from now on, the country will be like California... ruled by the Democrats and the unions, despite an occasional Republican governor..." Is that really such a bad thing given the state of Republican party politics as it stands right now? Does it mean the Republicans didn't spend enough? Much of what you have stated here simply isn't true, it is a perception. Much of what has happened in the past four years or so (economically) is not entirely the Obama administrations fault, many other worldwide factors come into play. As for the poverty line, is it really the government that has lowered wages, curbed the unions from fighting for their members, etc? I believe the US government is subsidizing thousands and thousands of jobs in one way or another. Can the same be said for big business (leaving small business out for the moment)? Is the banking and financial system getting any better for instance. The last four years have been pretty hellish for many countries (some a helluva lot more than the US). When will the blame game by you end? The extremely rich are still getting extremely richer all through this period, haven't you noticed?
softaire 13-Nov-12, 07:48	change WHICH of those reasons that I posted are not true? Each of those is another one of the ways in which the liberals bought the election. They have made the country more than 50% dependent on government. They have put the American people into the position of depending on government entitlements, government benefits, government handouts and they have intimidated and threatened the loss of money and stuff, or they have said that the Republicans and Conservatives are evil and will take it away. So tell me what you think is not true and didn't/hasn't happened... and give an explanation, please.
changeling 13-Nov-12, 07:53	softy This report belies the facts of what you insist has happened. www.bespokeinvest.com
softaire 13-Nov-12, 09:09	change Nice try. I have explained before that the stock market numbers went way down and now they are nearly back up to where they were (except of course now with BO and the fiscal cliff coming, they will be going back down again). BUT... in the meantime, housing values, 401K values (fixed investments) all went way down also... but they have not come up nearly as much as the stock market numbers. For example, the stock market numbers, housing values, and 401K values all fell approximately 45%, say. Now, the stock market is back up to say 90 - 95% of here it used to be. BUT, housing values and 401K values are still about (roughly) 35% below where they were. The places where inflation is NOT happening is in the interest paid to fixed investments, money market accounts, stocks, bonds etc. Why? If you notice that there is inflation going on in other things as well... such as energy costs, gasoline costs, food costs, clothing and entertainment costs, transportation costs, housing costs, heating costs. Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. In other words, the Fed has been printing money hand over fist. This devalues assets, money and fixed investments. The money doesn't buy as much, it is worth less. This is very hard on poor, elderly, and investments that are not tied to inflation. The government likes it because it allows them to meet there obligations with the same number of dollars although the dollars are worth less. The government can now make more promises and allow more entitlements because they will pay them with dollars that aren't worth as much. Same numbers... just worth less.
dmaestro 13-Nov-12, 12:00	Common ground is based on common information. The belief that liberals "bought" the election by creating unhealthy dependency on government lacks factual basis. What actually happened was that the extreme right never questioned their own hype and dumped Reagan's big tent philosophy for throwing those who failed some purity test under the bus. Reagan was very good at keeping people in the tent under a general fiscal conservative banner while finding ways to build coalitions and compromise. The problems really began when the righties threw Bush 41 under the bus and began to presume they ran the bus as they built their own right wing echo chamber of ditto heads. They used fiscal conservatism as a weapon and adopted a bait and switch approach for forcing a reactionary social conservative agenda while discarding the deficit reduction plan that was working to give the rich tax breaks. And then they got hung up in the neocon agenda of preplanned wars; and the failed libertarian/objectivist fantasy that capitalists are self regulating as if government was the only threat. Having run the bus off the cliff, they have invented conspiracy theories rather than face reality and responsibility. The country as a whole has simply shifted toward diversity, toldrance, moderation and centrism while they shifted to the extreme right, so far right they lost perspective. When you think moderation and centrism is socialism, you have gone too far to the extreme right. "When you go claiming Obama is chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"
thumper 13-Nov-12, 14:00	The guy with the orange t-shirt and his two buddies, especially the one who removed his shirt, showcase how our local libs act; A very amusing encounter with a conservative, witnessed and recorded by the SPD and witnesses. mynorthwest.com
dmaestro 13-Nov-12, 15:29	I recognize the modus operandi but that wasn't me. We are gentle, peace loving folk who prefer to be reasonable in the face of tea party provocation
changeling 14-Nov-12, 06:19	softy Can you not read? "...For example, the stock market numbers, housing values, and 401K values all fell approximately 45%, say. Now, the stock market is back up to say 90 - 95% of here it used to be. BUT, housing values and 401K values are still about (roughly) 35% below where they were. The places where inflation is NOT happening is in the interest paid to fixed investments, money market accounts, stocks, bonds etc..." What are you on about? The figures clearly show that more money has been invested in the past four years, not less! Surely this 'creates' jobs, not takes them away? Unless of course the ones making the money are not reinvesting it into jobs! (Republican rich perhaps?). Please do not misinterpret: By rich I mean the mega rich, not the small business fraternity. I guess that would also fit the bill for the Democrat mega rich.   Housing values always fluctuate depending on current buying markets. The crash in the US was because of something else entirely, for that many have paid dearly. That was the financial sector being friggin greedy!
chaz- 14-Nov-12, 08:44	... what other defense do the wealthy have if it's not job creation. That seemed to be the only thing the far right folks could use in defense of their anti-tax-the-rich mantras. What gives? Is it merely greed?
softaire 14-Nov-12, 12:13	chaz Is not providing and creating jobs a reason enough? Let's see if we can figure out what might be fair here... We'll start with allowing 49% of the working public to NOT pay any income taxes on that. Then, we'll give some of those people money back... even though they didn't pay anything. Then let's tell the top 20% of income earners to pay 80% of the total income tax bill. (They already do that) But, now we want to decide that it is "fair" to change them more than that. I guess you think it fair for 20% to pay more than 80% and to have 49% pay nothing. And, yet I am sure you think that everybody should get one vote. How about you get one vote for every dollar in taxes you pay? What do you think of that? Isn't that then fair too?
dmaestro 14-Nov-12, 17:30	What the tea party wants is a plutocracy. In fact wealth redistribution from the elites created the middle class. The rich are NOT paying their fair share. Only when money is flowing towards the people, he 99%, rather than the already wealthy at the top are taxes fair. Old money is parasitic, it must be recycled back so others can realize their dreams too. They did not build it and it is not theirs to keep. Let them shrug.
chaz- 14-Nov-12, 17:43	Softy ... ... please factor in sales and property taxes into your equation ... then let's consider why the middle class pays on average a higher percentage of their income in income taxes than do the rich ... then, explain why the premium for Medicare for someone earning $100K per year is twice as much percentagewise than someone earning $200K per year ... but, it seems, you justify and rejustify the rich retaining their wealth at the expense of the middle class, plus it seems you have this built-in bias against the poor and less-advantaged. Now, you're suggesting more votes for those who pay more taxes? That certainly must be meant with some sarcasm or humor ... but with you, I can't always tell.
dmaestro 14-Nov-12, 18:10	In reality there is no daylight between the position softaire takes and that of the ultra rich right wing extremist Koch brothers. Who haven't offered softaire a position yet. Only when wealth stops flowing to the top could we seriously say the rich may need a break.
softaire 14-Nov-12, 18:47	You keep saying that the rich need to be taxed more and that they are not paying their fair share. But you never address the fact that about 20% of the top earners pay about 80% of the taxes already. Or, that the bottom 49% pay no income taxes. Now, if you want to be fair and treat people equally, you would say that everybody should pay the same rate. That way if you earn more, you pay more... but it is equal rate and equal fairness. I am not any more in favor of the rich than I am for the poor, or vice-versa. I certainly am not among the top 20%. I have nothing to gain except the fact that I actually believe that all people should be treated equally and fairly. The left does not believe that. The left believes that it is FAIR to punish success and achievement. They believe that it is JUST to take from those that have and give to those that do not have. (That sounds a lot like Marxism to me)
chaz- 14-Nov-12, 19:06	Softy ... ... please try harder to understand the rationales that are presented. You've asked others to understand your rationale, and on balance it seems you haven't moved from your intransigent position. If so, then it's difficult for anyone, let alone anyone here, to ever give you enough data to balance your innate biases. We obviously have fundamental differences of opinions. There is nothing unfair about those with great wealth to pay more than the same percentage as those who have little. Fairness is providing for those who cannot easily provide for themselves (like the wealthy obviously can); but, I understand that you don't see it this way. OK. And, it is not even close to Marxism ... I think you need to read your history a little bit, and understand what Marxism truly is.
dmaestro 14-Nov-12, 20:01	A flat tax is NOT fair, it perpetuates a trend of money flow to the top. The reason is obvious, it takes capital to make capital. For the middle class, only property has been a real engine of wealth growth over several decades and much of the income goes towards normal living expenses. The rich have lots more disposable income. Regardless of how you twist it, a society where the rich grow at the expense of middle class is unjust and unhealthy.
thumper 14-Nov-12, 20:54	Try harder to understand Softie. You're just not trying hard enough. Slacker!!
softaire 14-Nov-12, 20:55	dm and chaz I have never said that we should not have a progressively higher tax on a progressively higher income. What you guys fail to acknowledge is that it IS inherently unfair and unequal to do that. You can't be saying that you are for treating people equally and then advocate not treating them equally. Another thing you fail to acknowledge is that the income redistribution IS already unfair and unequal. 20% are paying 80% and 49% are paying nothing. THAT is NOT equal, or fair. The point of contention is where do YOU draw your line and finally say "OK, they are paying their fair share"? What amount or what percentage do YOU consider to be their fair share? ALL OF IT? Fair and equal is fair and equal. NOT equal is not fair, but we accommodate it... to an extent. I am really curious to hear you tell us what your percentage or what amount is "fair" in your view. When do you stop saying that the people who have something must give it to the people who do not have it?
thumper 14-Nov-12, 20:57	Let me explain it simply so that I may get through to you. The simple fact that people are rich is the proof that they're not taxed enough by government.
dmaestro 14-Nov-12, 21:00	Again softaire, when taxes were higher on the rich the middle class grew and so did the rich. So the progressive tax rates need to be sufficient to ensue the rich are not growing AT THE EXPENSE of the middle class and lower middle class. I do not say soak the rich unnecessarily.
softaire 14-Nov-12, 21:04	dm Yes, you are saying that. If 20% are paying 80% NOW and 49% are paying zero now, then what number do YOU think is the maximum they should pay so that you would stop asking for more?
changeling 14-Nov-12, 21:39	How much do the 49% earn softy? Are the wages going down or up? If wages become so low that a family cannot live reasonably, what then, tax them more to pay for social services, but not the ones who can afford it easily? The argument that the rich should not have to pay for the poor is moot. How do you think the rich get that way? Feudalism disappeared hundreds of years ago, or did it?
softaire 14-Nov-12, 22:09	change The question would be for you too. You are ignoring the basic question of at least recognizing that what you are asking is NOT equal, and that is NOT fair. I have conceded that we do it, but I'm saying you can't be calling it equal or fair. But, we do it anyway. So, given that we do it... the question for you is WHERE do we draw the line? What (in your mind) is the "fair" amount to take from people that have something to take and then give it to people who don't have it? What is YOUR percent or amount? Your number?
thumper 14-Nov-12, 22:13	Softie. Don't you know that it's only fair for the top 20% to pay 100% of the taxes demanded by government and that 51% of the non-tax paying populous should decide who runs the government so they can in effect decide how that money is distributed. After the government extracts a 'reasonable' amount for operating costs of course.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.