Jump to content

ExPDXer

Member
  • Content Count

    839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    M
  • Location
    FL

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Recent Profile Visitors

1,824 profile views
  1. Not any more. He may act like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot. And idiots know very little about politics, among other things. ^^^^I see you finally admit it. You are simply a hole in the air. Your mother should have thrown you away and kept the stork.
  2. It is discouraging that a respectful, insightful, and highly intelligent LO member is lost because of someone who exhibits the opposite characteristics. Perhaps there should be a rule about advocating violence. I would rather debate a intelligent conservative than a hateful, small minded 'liberal'. I have been using the ignore approach, and haven't posted in his threads, or react to his posts in the threads of others. I would rather trolls not be allowed to post in my threads, or in threads of others. Ignoring threats of violence is tantamount to silence. Is silence really the right approach?.... "Silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented" (Elie Wiesel) "What you allow, you encourage" (Carrie Heinze-Musgrove) "Your silence is consent" (Plato). bludog has done an amazing job, under very difficult conditions. I'm sure he will do the right thing. Thank you bludog. I was in the process of posting when I read your decision. I was just about to earn myself a nice little vacation.
  3. ExPDXer

    Why don't libruls embrace patriotism?

    Conservatives have successfully marketed patriotism as a trademark for many years. In some cases they have weaponized the term , (Joe McCarthy, ...."Love it, or Leave it",...etc). Is nationalism the new patriotism? If so, you can count me out. There may be a difference between: Loving America as a nation, country, or some vague nationalistic concept while the actual population, or citizenry as a whole, is loved, ...uhh perhaps not so much. and... Loving America as a diverse, inclusive group of people. The idea of "America First" exceptionalism, or infallibility, is loved perhaps not so much. Patriotism, (like many -isms), is in the eye of the beholder, and can be used to unite, or to divide. As a kid, I used to watch old cowboy films...... Things have changed a bit I think.
  4. ExPDXer

    Why don't libruls embrace patriotism?

    As some warn victory, some downfall Private reasons great or small Can be seen in the eyes of those that call To make all that should be killed to crawl While others say don't hate nothing at all Except hatred For them that must obey authority That they do not respect in any degree Who despise their jobs, their destinies Speak jealously of them that are free Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in
  5. ExPDXer

    The defamation of socialism

    I do not have any disagreement with this organization. I already stated what I would prefer: A more detailed set of policies outlining their plan for tax fairness. 'Narrative' of rich oppression? Please expand. It sounds as if you are dismissing of the obvious, inordinate inequities the wealthy enjoy in the areas of taxation, criminal justice, and political influence. The exact same website you linked seems to be engaging in this 'narrative'.... An Ultra-Millionaire Tax Will Make New York Better. Why Is Cuomo Resisting? It’s Time to Address the Growing Concentration of Wealth <snip> Whether Congress institutes Sen. Warren’s millionaires tax, follows through on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 70% top marginal rate, or revamps the estate tax as Sen. Sanders suggested, there are at least some lawmakers who believe something must be done to undo the growing concentration of wealth that is crippling this country. I may have been too harsh lumping Friedman in with Laffer, et al. An overstatement on my part. My critique of Friedman is his 'tight' monetarism, which spawned a whole group of 'small-government' politicians. Many of the supply siders have used Friedman's work as justification for tax cuts for corporations, and the wealthy. My beef is not with individuals, but with inequitable policies that continue to widen the wealth gap.
  6. ExPDXer

    The defamation of socialism

    From their website: " While it is undeniable that we need a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code, nothing significant is going to get done in the current political environment. However, there are some small actions we can take: eliminating the most egregious tax loopholes, increasing the number of tax brackets, defending the estate tax, and repatriating overseas assets. " Although I can't argue with their proposals, it seems a bit anemic to me. I am not a fan of brackets. It is inherently unfair to those at the bottom of each bracket, and is an open invitation for tax avoidance. Not enough details to take them seriously. An evil genius, maybe. The idea that if we throw, shovel, bulldoze enough $$$ to the 'job creators' it would trickle down has been proven to be a failure for all but the top x%. It ignores the demand side. Consequently: 40% of Americans don’t have the cash to pay for an emergency expense 11% of American adults simply could not come up with $400 at all, not with family, not with credit cards - nothing - unless they used money that they were already using to pay other bills like rent. 25% have no retirement or pension savings This wealth inequality is the result of Friedman's supply side economics. If people cannot afford to buy things, it does not matter how much money you shovel to the top x%. It just makes the poor poorer, and the rich richer. The overall economy suffers. IMHO, the Keynesian economic principles that FDR used 90 years ago have a much better track record, than Friedman / Laffer /Reagon / Ryan trickle down, supply side scam perpetrated on our economy since the 80's. The opposite of supply side economics is demand side economics. Demand side economics is all about increasing demand in the consumer... Raising minimum wages, reducing healthcare costs, lower/ middle class tax credits or tax cuts are ways to increase discretionary funds to drive consumer spending. Yes. An ideal, fair, and progressive tax system would be a upwardly sloping line (no bracket 'steps'), from $0 to $xxx billion in income I described this idea in my prior posts on the subject, where I analyzed IRS data, and census data to compare different tax policies... the-equation-for-economic-justice redistribute wealth:tax the rich 2.0 So far, no presidential candidate has embraced the idea of combining flat tax (regressive), with generous tax credits (progressive).
  7. ExPDXer

    So Who Are We Going To Support In 2020?

    Updated National Poll Updated w/ Emerson poll (3/18/2019): Beto gets a bump, Biden takes a hit.... New Hampshire Granite State poll: N.H. Undecided(s) break for Bernie - leads Biden by 20%
  8. ExPDXer

    The defamation of socialism

    Absolutely... I agree much of the the private workforce has been reduced to performing trivial tasks for low wages. However, there are some very important, non-trivial tasks that need to be addressed for the benefit of the public: Infrastructure: Yes, roads, and bridges are falling apart, but the infrastructure(s) I am most worried about are Power Grid Infrastructure - exposure to hacking. Voting System Infrastructure - exposure to hacking (foreign) Internet (as an Infrastructor) - exposure to hacking, privacy Climate Change: There is a plethora is meaningful, research, projects that really need to be done. The government should really be driving research, and technology, independent of the private sector's financial interests. Counter Intelligence: Defense against cyber-warfare, instead of traditional warfare. The US is falling behind in this critical field. Education: Teaching will always be a non-trivial task. Really? Our masters are benevolent because they support 'leftwing' candidates? Who are these plutocrats, and which leftwing candidates are they supporting? Friedman is the biggest economic charlatan of the 20th century. Monopolies regulate themselves by getting so prosperous that they develop a guilt complex, and allow great wealth to trickle down. This has never happened, and never will happen to any appreciable degree. Bezos begrudgingly raised the wage to $15 after pressure from progressives like Sen. Sanders. Apparently there is no limit to how prosperous (greedy) someone has to be to before becoming philanthropic, and altrustic (the opposite of greed). Not so unrealistic, the tax code is the place to start. Once the tax system is adjusted to benefit middle class, and lower income workers, it is very difficult to take it back. The 1% will squeal, but once it is done, it is a fait accompli. It will be like Obamacare. Republicans tried, and tried to kill it, even with control of all 3 branches. Friedman used this negative income tax concept in an attempt to defend his otherwise draconian, and unjust theory of supply side economics, which inherently creates poverty. He implies that the wealthy 'might be willing to alleviate poverty', but the wealthy have some conditions that they would like to place on their 'generosity'. Wealthy individuals do not get set 'conditions' for alleviating poverty any more than any other individual does. Friedman's trickle down, supply side theory has been a demonstrable failure for 90% of the population. Having said that, this negative income tax idea is very workable idea. I looked into it before, but prefer substantial (~20K / year) tax credits, combined with a flat rate, with no loopholes. Corporations, (since they have been legally declare people by Citizens United) should also pay the same flat tax rate with no loopholes. I try not to allow goofy ideas created in the the mind of right wingers affect me. Republicans are not the only ones with insulting definitions for basic economic reform. Centrist Democrats are also quick to pounce on any economic reforms that threaten their benefactors. Chomsky: "Socialism... I mean we can argue about... there's no point arguing about what the word means,....." raw capitalism is as dangerous as raw socialism. Elements of regulation, anti-trust, and taxation need to be applied to raw capitalism for it to become palatable. What is in the best interest of the Public is not always in the best interest of private enterprise. This is why I view the real issue to be: Public Good vs Private Interests
  9. ExPDXer

    So Who Are We Going To Support In 2020?

    Latest polling trends (last 5 months) of top 12...
  10. ExPDXer

    Us vs Them: Morals

    Yep. Openly advocating violence, and hatred would be a good indication of immoral behavior. Consider this my last response: for it was written, trolls like BlueDoggL shall be smitten, and ignored til after the end of time Good bye.
  11. ExPDXer

    Us vs Them: Morals

    What you presented was personal opinion, and vague generalizations about Trump supporters, and non-Trump supporters. What you presented is intentionally divisive along arbitrary religious demarcation lines. You seem to be appointing yourself the adjudicator of good & evil, and who is 'them'. This is not proof of anything. Your words do not prove anything to me, except that your standard of proof is extremely low. The only thing that can be conclusively said about Trump supporters is that they continue to support Trump. That's enough for me to infer their level of critical thinking abilities, and their credibility. The same can be said for religious zealots, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, white supremacists, and others who feel the need to herd around nonsensical belief systems. Trump himself is incompetent, and dangerous, and I support impeaching him for his abuse of power. You are simply making claims. Show some proof. I can assure you that I am currently located in my house in Florida. I do not know why you think I am in Norway... Hell Stasjon, Norway Other than in Norway, I could not locate any evidence of the existence of a Hell Train. Does it exist in reality, or just in your fantastical imagination? You've made a lot of assumptions based upon no evidence. Why would you support the concept of a sadistic dictator creating humans for the soul purpose of sending their remains on a hell train to be incinerated or suffer unimaginable pain until after the end of time? There you go with the Hell Train again. How does BlueDoggL determine which humans have been pre-destined to ride these vertically oriented locomotive(s)? Weren't trains invented after the beginning of time? Wouldn't heaven bound spaceships, or transporter beams be more appropriate? How did the remains of bad people get to hell before the invention of the locomotive? How much carbon emission is produced by these trains? Have you ever thought of creating a cleaner, more efficient method of transporting these souls? Perhaps an Uber2Hell ride-sharing app? So many questions. No, sheep are sheep, and goats are goats. Humans are human, each is unique, and not substantially better or worse than one another, especially after they are deceased. Why is that so difficult to understand?
  12. ExPDXer

    Us vs Them: Morals

    To me, you are "them". So if they are evil, and evil masquerades as good, then they (you) may be the Anti-Christ, or whatever. Or it could be you are just a miss-informed robot who believes in a celestial dictator. Or, it could be your just a troll pretending to be a reasonable liberal, but failing miserably. So yes, "we" are better than them, at least not as gullible.
  13. I am not in favor of "getting rid of the rich", either. Only a miss-informed provocateur, or troll would suggest such a thing. However, closing loopholes, and imposing fair tax rates is reasonable, and long overdue. It is not capital punishment. It is interesting that you use the term power vacuum. They are a very, very small percent of the population that exerts extraordinary power. I acknowledge money equals power, and power can be used, and / or abused. It is the abuse of that power need to be checked. There is no doubt in my mind that the criminal justice system is tilted in favor of the wealthy, and politically connected, for instance. Some wealthy individuals use their wealth / power to disproportionately influence politicians. The current tax system is also stacked in favor of the wealthy. To me it is just a question of fairness. After closing loopholes, and imposing a fair tax rate, the top 1% will still be the top 1%, just with slightly less wealth. Again, only a loon would advocate 'getting rid' of people. Period. However, with the exception Bloomberg, the people listed above are not policy experts, and have not been elected by anyone. They are just like you and I, only richer. They are richer because they own, or have owned successful businesses, or corporations. That's good, as long as those businesses do not exploit workers, consumers, or taxpayers. If businesses, or corporations do use egregious exploitation as a revenue stream, the owners should be held responsible. The fact that many of these exploitations are legal, or un-enforced is a political problem that needs to addressed by informed voters. If a business, or corporation can be successful without exploiting workers, consumers, or taxpayers, then they and their owners deserve to makes as much money (after fair taxation), as they can, and should be applauded. It really comes down to making a quality product, selling it for a fair price, and paying their workers a fair wage. Absolutely! I feel he has already committed illegal, or impeachable acts, so it is either indictment, or impeachment. The election may be politically advantageous, but it is the duty of the Justice Dept, or Congress to act constitutionally. Lowering the bar of acceptability is unacceptable to me. Besides, if Trump is not indicted, or impeached, there's a chance he could pull off an electoral college win in 2020. And if he loses , there's no guarantee he will accept the outcome. All this is dangerous territory. A line needs to be drawn on abuse of presidential power.
×