The FDR legacy among the American right

Originally posted by whodey
Of cousre. It is because they know that they can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. To enjoy a thanksgiving feast, you must first feed the turkey.

I'm not sure what you're aiming at here... these Nordic countries have had high taxes for many decades and all have a higher GDP per capita than the US.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure what you [whodey, are] aiming at here...

I think he's ignoring any bits of information you give that don't fit his one string tune, and er... "translating" other bits so that they do.

Originally posted by FMF
I think he's ignoring any bits of information you give that don't fit his one string tune, and er... "translating" other bits so that they do.

Yes let's get this back on track shall we?

America's bad blah blah blah America's awful blah blah blah Americans suck blah blah blah

That make you happy FMF?

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Yes let's get this back on track shall we? America's bad blah blah blah America's awful blah blah blah Americans suck blah blah blah. That make you happy FMF?

whodey misunderstood what KN meant by "high tax".

But the other points you make here are tremendous.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not sure what you're aiming at here... these Nordic countries have had high taxes for many decades and all have a higher GDP per capita than the US.

Do the politicians in these Nordic countries steal from their retirment plans? Do the politicians in these countries drive up deficits of around $13 trillion causing a good portion of the GDP to be flushed down the commode in yearly interest on the debt?

No offense, but comparing the Nordic countries to the system in the US is like comparing apples and oragnes. Increasing taxes in the US system would help put yet another nail in her already made coffin. In case you had not noticed, the unemployement rate is ballooning in the states with no end in site. How would increasing taxes help this situation?

Originally posted by whodey
"W" was tarred and feathered for his attempt at reform by the Dems. Social Security is, as all entitlements seem to become, a sacred cow that is set in stone. That is what is so scary about them. All that is needed is for the Dems to cry that those evil Republicans are trying to rob from the poor and give to the rich as they attempt to reform the system. ...[text shortened]... to eeeducate the public and create voter carnage from both parties untill something is done.

The idea is for a movement such as the Tea Partiers to come up with a specific plan - get a lot of popular support behind that plan - and use this support to pressure both GOP and Dems into making real changes. Otherwise, all of the efforts to create "voter carnage" will be like trying to remove teeth from sharks. Another set will always grow in.

The main reason why W got tarred was because the whole thing was a "Republican plan". Just like Obama's healthcare plan was a "Democrat plan". Once that happens, the opposing party plays the "we hopes it fails" card" and that card is always an ace. There's got to be some way of formulating a plan that from the very BEGINNING is based on a bipartisan or independent project.

Successful social security reform will require widespread bipartisanship with both sides offering imaginative proposals and being willing to respond constructively to criticism.

Tort reform is needed to keep health care costs down. There is no way around it. Unfortunatly, what you are asking is for lawyers to reform themselves. It is akin to asking a fox to gaurd a hen house. To drive home the point, the new NHC bill is void of such reform. Not one drop of it.

One reason why tort reform wasn't in the current healthcare debate is because it's an ornery issue that really needs to be debated by itself. How do we reduce the frivolous lawsuits while protecting people who are legitimately injured by incompetent or unscrupulous doctors? The Tea Party Movement needs to find some good, specific ideas and push them.

As for eliminating filibusters based on the length of a bill, I don't agree with this. Length has nothing to do with it being "good". It just means that it is easier to understand

Maybe the filibuster idea isn't the best way of doing this (although I bet you'd never see another bill longer than 400 pages!). Maybe you can propose a better incentive. My point is that if you provide sufficient motivation, we could eliminate the 2000 page bills. Congress would be forced to break things down into bite-sized pieces.

In fact, could you imagine the money that a person could have after working some 30 years at any one job? When they die it could be put back into the system again for the less fortunate who can't work.

Indeed. Could you imagine the money a person could have after working for 30 years? - if only they had a savings account instead of maxxing out credit cards? Of course, the insurance companies would hate this...

If the issue is cost, then the US would start converting cars to natural gas because it is far cheaper than oil. If the issue is carbon emission then they would convert to natural gas, because it is cleaner burning than what we use now. So you tell me, what is the real issue?

If the issue is cost, the private sector would already be selling zillions of cars that run on natural gas and no one would be buying gas-powered cars anymore. What's stopping them?

Originally posted by whodey
Do the politicians in these Nordic countries steal from their retirment plans? Do the politicians in these countries drive up deficits of around $13 trillion causing a good portion of the GDP to be flushed down the commode in yearly interest on the debt?

No offense, but comparing the Nordic countries to the system in the US is like comparing apples and or ...[text shortened]... s ballooning in the states with no end in site. How would increasing taxes help this situation?

A government job is generally cheaper than a private sector job. Also, nominal consumer spending by the upper middle class tends to go to services and goods which provide relatively few jobs. So if you raise taxes for the upper middle class and the rich, and use the money to invest in the economy (infrastructure, education, etc.) then you will create more jobs than are lost due to raising taxes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A government job is generally cheaper than a private sector job. Also, nominal consumer spending by the upper middle class tends to go to services and goods which provide relatively few jobs. So if you raise taxes for the upper middle class and the rich, and use the money to invest in the economy (infrastructure, education, etc.) then you will create more jobs than are lost due to raising taxes.

So your message to Obama is to raise taxes on the middle class in order to create more jobs?

Originally posted by whodey
So your message to Obama is to raise taxes on the middle class in order to create more jobs?

Yes.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes.

I have to hand it to you, I have never met anyone so in love with taxes than you. In fact, liberals I have met much prefer spending than taxes. For them, spending is the way to more jobs. Just ask Obama and his promise with his last stimulus bill to bring in more jobs. It never happened.

Originally posted by whodey
I have to hand it to you, I have never met anyone so in love with taxes than you. In fact, liberals I have met much prefer spending than taxes. For them, spending is the way to more jobs. Just ask Obama and his promise with his last stimulus bill to bring in more jobs. It never happened.

I don't think government spending is necessarily good. Efficient government spending is good. If government can increase efficiency by cutting costs, it should do so even if it costs jobs on the short term. However, redistrubution requires taxation. And even though it shows up on the balance sheets as "expenses for social security", it really just is spreading wealth around, not necessarily spending it for people. You can do this with a tiny amount of regulation and administrative personnel, but indirectly it creates a lot of jobs.

As for the stimulus package: if X happens after Y it does not always mean Y caused X. You really should read the posts of people who refute your claims more carefully, and try to understand what they say.

Originally posted by whodey
I have to hand it to you, I have never met anyone so in love with taxes than you. In fact, liberals I have met much prefer spending than taxes. For them, spending is the way to more jobs. Just ask Obama and his promise with his last stimulus bill to bring in more jobs. It never happened.

unlike many liberals, KN is willing to pay now for everything that government does instead of pushing all the costs (plus the interest) onto his grandchildren.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
unlike many liberals, KN is willing to pay now for everything that government does instead of pushing all the costs (plus the interest) onto his grandchildren.

Sounds like a great system.
I say we start shipping boat loads of illegal immigrants from the U.S. there immediately.

And not stop.
Until they are all gone.

Then we'll see what a wonnnnerful system theys got going on over there.
A quick 35-40 million new citizens would be a great addition to the system.
The good news is you can pay them in cash and save on taxes.

Just think KN, plenty of cheap labor for your gov programs! wooohooo!

Imagine the jobs that would be created here in the U.S.!!!
Of course it would take 4 fat U.S. citizens to do the job of one illegal immigrant.😞