He's going down, down, down

[retro-man]

"World Knowledge Forum" .........

 

Edited September 2, 2011 by retro-man

[Mark B. Morrow]

Wouldn't speaking at the World Knowledge Forum presuppose having some knowledge of the World? Or at least having some knowledge.

 

I hope she can read very small writing on her hand.

[Mark B. Morrow]

And where would these people go????

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos

 

 

They'll find a place to go. They always do.

[Roadtrip]

Wouldn't speaking at the World Knowledge Forum presuppose having some knowledge of the World? Or at least having some knowledge.

 

I hope she can read very small writing on her hand.

 

Sarah Palin gave an impressive speech at a Tea Party event in Iowa this past Saturday. It was impressive in terms of content and substance, as well as her ability to convey her patriotism and passion for the ideals that made our country great. The curious minded can watch or read the transcript of her speech here:

 

http://www.sarahpac.com/posts/governor-palins-speech-at-the-restoring-america-tea-party-of-america-rally-in-indianola-iowa-video-and-transcript

 

She didn't indicate explicitly that she will run, but implicitly, she did, in that (1) she differentiated herself from the rest of the Republican field, calling them out for their "crony capitalism" and the "permanent political class"; and (2) she outlined a five-point plan for a return to prosperity.

 

I agree with her plan, but it needs a bit of tweaking: In her fifth point, she calls for an elimination of the corporate income tax (as a means of making America the most attractive place to do business). She's correct (as corporations merely pass their tax burdens on to their customers or employees or dividend recipients), but then she wants to eliminate corporate tax loopholes, too (which wouldn't be necessary if corporate income taxes were eliminated). To be fair, politicians of all stripes through the ages have floated policy proposals that needed revising, and in that context, this was a minor offense. (But for liberals, since she is Sarah Palin, this minor faux pas is the equivalent of Jim Crow, Hitler invading France, the Spanish Inquisition, or worse. . . . )

 

Sarah Palin wants to eliminate all government subsidies -- which is a huge break from the pay-to-play culture of Washington politics on both sides of the aisle. She knows that subsidies distort prices and cost taxpayers money -- as well as benefitting the wealthiest of recipients (i.e., wealthy campaign donors contributing to their politicians of choice). Barack Obama knows that, too, but he doesn't propose to do anything about it, as those recipients of government subsidies are precisely whom he depends on to build his $1 billion reelection war chest. Where exactly do the liberals weigh in on this issue? Are they pleased with the status quo -- in which big money decides electoral outcomes and therefore defines public policy? That's a question Sarah Palin raised in her speech, and a question worthy of consideration. (Oh, but I forgot. . . . Sarah Palin is so stupid.)

 

One thing's for sure: Sarah Palin has the ability to excite crowds. From her speech, I would say more so than any of the other Republican candidates, she has a certain Reagan-esque, optimistic, "can-do" quality that none of the other candidates have been able to convey (at least from watching them in the first debate). Barack Obama? Not so much these days. People have grown tired of his negative, blaming, and professorial tones.

 

Sarah Palin also makes clear that she loves our country and its history, and what made it exceptional. The current occupant of the White House seemingly couldn't care less, and would prefer to apologize for American exceptionalism. Obama, in dismissing the concept of American exceptionalism, actually said that Greece is exceptional, too, and we all know how well that turned out. Had Sarah Palin made such an absurd statement, we would have never heard the end of it. But she didn't say it. It was Barack Obama who uttered that absurdity -- among his many others. My personal favorite was during the 2008 campaign, when during the gas crisis, Obama suggested that the cure for high gas prices was for people to properly inflate their tires and get a tune up. Brilliant. I doubt Obama has even the wherewithal to change a flat tire (maybe he could hope for a change?), much less tune up a car that needs tuning up. As for Sarah Palin? Could she do it? If she can shoot and then skin, and then quarter, and then cook a carabou, is it reasonable to assume she could change a flat on her familiy's SUV? You betcha!

[RangerM]

Sarah Palin gave an impressive speech at a Tea Party event in Iowa this past Saturday. It was impressive in terms of content and substance, as well as her ability to convey her patriotism and passion for the ideals that made our country great. The curious minded can watch or read the transcript of her speech here......

Problem is, in a country that could elect a person with the "depth" of Obama I think it's optimistic to expect the electorate to look beyond their first impressions of Palin.

 

Some of this is due to Palin herself (in her not-ready-for-primetime performance during the 2008 election) and the hatchet job performed on her by the left (with help from the media).

 

Obama came across as the deeper, more intellectual candidate to those DIS-interested enough to actually comprehend what he was saying.

 

Palin has become to many an SNL joke. And she's not going to overturn that impression (enough) by simply giving speeches to crowds. She has to go to mass media; and more than just Fox News.

 

Obama is weak (and beatable), but Palin is weaker in independent voters' eyes.

[Edstock]

As for Sarah Palin? Could she do it? If she can shoot and then skin, and then quarter, and then cook a carabou, is it reasonable to assume she could change a flat on her familiy's SUV? You betcha!

 

Unfortunately, running the US is way more difficult than changing a flat.

 

The sad part about Palin is that she is proud of her ignorance, she knows what she knows, and anything new is acquired only with great reluctance; she is representative of a broad anti-intellectual attitude of lower-income American conservatives.

 

 

 

[Trimdingman]

Regardless of whether you are "liberal" or "conservative", you should ponder that

 

we have never lived in an electronic economy before.

 

So? Well, gang, because we have never lived in an electronic economy before, nobody knows what the "rules" are, for how it really works. There are a lot of people who think they know, but they are probably delusional.

 

For example, inflation: 50 years ago, banks could pay interest 2 x a year on savings accounts, and with the primitive computer systems, it was a ball-buster. Today, cyber systems make setting up a bookkeeping system cheap and easy. Be they on the debit or credit side, interest gets charged. What is the cumulative effect of this explosive growth, a myriad of interest-charged accounts?

 

Add the rise of GIGANTIC investment funds and positive/negative "hedge" funds and world-wide currency trading, commodities futures and market short-selling and you have a monetary "system" that may be truly incomprehensible, as an entirety.

 

My 2¢.

 

 

Mathematics doesn't change. Electronics allows you to put off the inevitable, but the Grim Reaper will always get his due in the end.

 

The stock market is just another form of gambling, with the House having the mathematical edge. If the government taxes you on your winnings, that is all the more reason to stay out.

 

We are in a depression. Wars are breaking out all over the world as a result. The dollar and euro are on the brink of collapse. They are worthless; just surviving on faith as they are being created out of thin air at an ever-increasing rate to try and plug the ever increasing vortex. We are nearing the tangent of pi over 2. It is mathematical certainty, like the Titanic's engineer in the movie said to the captain over a drink in the ship's bar, after they hit the iceberg.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Trimdingman

[RangerM]

.....a broad anti-intellectual attitude of lower-income American conservatives.

Because as we all (should) know, lower-income liberals read classical literature and scientific periodicals in their offtime.

[Trimdingman]

Unfortunately, running the US is way more difficult than changing a flat.

 

The sad part about Palin is that she is proud of her ignorance, she knows what she knows, and anything new is acquired only with great reluctance; she is representative of a broad anti-intellectual attitude of lower-income American conservatives.

 

"Intellectual" means "like-thinking" preceded by years of classroom indoctrination. People study for years to become religious leaders, also. In my opinion, religion is bunk. I arrived at that conclusion through my own common sense and years of studying the world through the prism of my own mentality, not someone else's. If that makes me a non-intellectual, I will take that as a compliment.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Trimdingman

[Trimdingman]

The North American markets are closed to-day, but it is a real bloodbath in Europe. The DAX is down over 5%. Tomorrow will not be pretty over here.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Trimdingman

[rscalzo]

Maybe create real jobs after getting rid of the overpaid worthless and unproductive government jobs.

 

You realize that will include a significant part of the military. When all those bases are closed, where are those people going? Right on the unemployment line.

[retro-man]

........... She's correct (as corporations merely pass their tax burdens on to their customers or employees or dividend recipients), but then she wants to eliminate corporate tax loopholes, too (which wouldn't be necessary if corporate income taxes were eliminated). To be fair, politicians of all stripes through the ages have floated policy proposals that needed revising, and in that context, this was a minor offense. (But for liberals, since she is Sarah Palin, this minor faux pas is the equivalent of Jim Crow, Hitler invading France, the Spanish Inquisition, or worse. . . . )

 

People have grown tired of his negative, blaming, and professorial tones...........

 

..............If she can shoot and then skin, and then quarter, and then cook a carabou, is it reasonable to assume she could change a flat on her familiy's SUV? You betcha!

Wait, that's all it takes to keep you happy? Shoot and skin a caribou? (note the correct spelling) You know, if people on the right keep toadying to the lowest common denominator by "refudiating" knowledge and intellect, the whole country is going to keep reaping a bitter harvest for it. I mean, God forbid Cletus the slack-jawed yokel should get the idea we're talking down to him. By the way - not to pile on, but the concept (if I dare call it that) of closing loopholes on non-existent taxes is more than a minor logical faux pas. It is indicative of just what you're getting here (and, for that matter, of the caliber of clever copy writers who concocted her admittedly moving - if eristic - speech).

 

By the way, these corporations that are going to pay no federal taxes: can we relocate them to somewhere where they don't use any of the services and protections that those taxes buy? No military protection, no university educated workforce, no potable water or breathable air, no satellite communication, no internet, no interstate highway system for commerce, no FAA to coordinate their flights? Hmmm? Can we do that? Because I'm tired of giving my hard-earned money to a bunch of freeloaders.

 

I'm surprised she went on at such length about the downgrading of our credit rating, considering that S&P were pretty specific about what caused that.

 

Sure there were some good and valid points in her speech (I did read it). There were good and valid points in speeches by Hitler (who was a genius at demagoguing his audience) and Mussolini too. I know, I know, I should be welcoming a Palin candidacy - and yet I am horrified by the fact that one is even possible.

[jpd80]

I've long suspected that US elections are nothing more than popularity contests,

the voters get what that want but does America get what it needs?

[RangerM]

I've long suspected that US elections are nothing more than popularity contests,

the voters get what that want but does America get what it needs?

It depends upon how you define "what it needs".

 

I'm not old enough (admittedly) to remember what it was like before, but my best guess is that our system has been undermined by the media (particularly television) that encourages our American electorate's dependence upon the images portrayed, rather than relying on the merits of the individual candidate using our own judgement.

 

It's easier to substitute our individual thought process to the talking heads on TV.

 

As much as I would hope the internet might mitigate this influence, it only seems to make it worse. The only exception I can think of is C Span.

 

Perhaps someone older than me has a better overall view.

[akirby]

the concept (if I dare call it that) of closing loopholes on non-existent taxes is more than a minor logical faux pas. It is indicative of just what you're getting here (and, for that matter, of the caliber of clever copy writers who concocted her admittedly moving - if eristic - speech).

 

By the way, these corporations that are going to pay no federal taxes: can we relocate them to somewhere where they don't use any of the services and protections that those taxes buy? No military protection, no university educated workforce, no potable water or breathable air, no satellite communication, no internet, no interstate highway system for commerce, no FAA to coordinate their flights? Hmmm? Can we do that?

 

This is a fundamental flaw of liberal ideology. Where do corporate profits go? They're either reinvested in product R&D (which creates jobs), in corporate expansion (which creates jobs) or given out to employees as bonuses and salary increases (which are taxed), paid as dividends to stockholders (which is eventually taxed) or paid to the owners (which is taxed).

 

If you take a business that's making a $20M profit on $200M in revenue and you add a $1M tax then they'll simply raise prices (and therefore revenue) to maintain the same profit level (assuming the tax also affects their competitors). If you raise taxes on the oil companies then we'll just end up paying more for petroleum products. A tax on a business is simply an added business cost that gets factored into their cost basis and therefore determines the price of goods and services rendered.

 

Raising taxes on businesses only causes the people to pay more for those goods and services, therefore any tax on a business is a tax on the public.

 

Federal government is for the people so let the people pay for it (but only pay for what is truly necessary). Let businesses pay for what they actually use (local property tax, utilities, etc.).

 

Why is this concept so hard for liberals to understand?

 

 

Because I'm tired of giving my hard-earned money to a bunch of freeloaders.

 

Exactly! Let's get rid of all the welfare freeloaders and the 50% of the public that doesn't pay any income tax. I guess it's ok that they're freeloaders, eh?

[Roadtrip]

Wait, that's all it takes to keep you happy? Shoot and skin a caribou? (note the correct spelling) You know, if people on the right keep toadying to the lowest common denominator by "refudiating" knowledge and intellect, the whole country is going to keep reaping a bitter harvest for it. I mean, God forbid Cletus the slack-jawed yokel should get the idea we're talking down to him. By the way - not to pile on, but the concept (if I dare call it that) of closing loopholes on non-existent taxes is more than a minor logical faux pas. It is indicative of just what you're getting here (and, for that matter, of the caliber of clever copy writers who concocted her admittedly moving - if eristic - speech).

 

No, what would make me happy is someone in a position of leadership -- especially in a role so important as president -- to have experience and a track record of success in a leadership role. And someone who has common sense, as opposed to someone with no leadership experience and who is armed only with theories and previously failed ideas, such as "green jobs" and vilifying the wealthy.

 

And at least Sarah Palin's idea of closing loopholes is only that: an idea (one idea in her plan that I said needs tweaking). And it is an idea that has not been implemented, unlike Obama's failed stimulus plan, Cash for Clunkers, the Affordable Homes Act, and the aforementioned "green jobs" initiatives, all of which have not only failed miserably, but have exacerbated our country's debt problem. In any case, Palin is correct in that loopholes are part of the broader problem, namely the federal tax code, which begs the "crony capitalism" that she mentioned several times in her speech.

 

No one on the right is "refudiating" knowledge or intellect; what those of us on the right oppose is the implementation of destructive Keynesian fiscal "solutions." And you can bet that Obama's jobs speech this coming Thursday will prescribe more of the same, and he will probably say that it wasn't enough the first time. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Come to think of it, those of us on the right are also opposed to leaders whose policy prescriptions fit Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.

 

By the way, these corporations that are going to pay no federal taxes: can we relocate them to somewhere where they don't use any of the services and protections that those taxes buy? No military protection, no university educated workforce, no potable water or breathable air, no satellite communication, no internet, no interstate highway system for commerce, no FAA to coordinate their flights? Hmmm? Can we do that? Because I'm tired of giving my hard-earned money to a bunch of freeloaders.

 

By the way, I guess you ignored what I wrote, and which was also noted by another poster above, which is that corporations do not pay federal income taxes. Those taxes are either baked into the final cost to consumers or customers, they can take the form of reduced dividends to shareholders, or they can take the form of reduced labor costs (often by reducing headcount). So go ahead and hate on corporations all you want, but get another premise for your argument, because the one you're using is not based on facts.

 

Sarah Palin's proposal of eliminating corporate income taxes would only serve to make corporations more competitive and profitable, thereby creating an environment hospitable to job growth. And it is that evil profit motive that creates jobs in the private sector, regardless of how much you wish that weren't the case. That same profit motive is what drives corporations (and sometimes entire industries) to make huge campaign contributions in return for favorable tax treatment, which Sarah Palin calls "crony capitalism." This is made possible by annual revisions to the tax code, in coordination with corporate and industry lobbyists, and both political parties are complicit. It happens at the federal and state level. Palin correctly designated such activity as "pay to play," and also said this is the "status quo" and it needs to be changed. Are you in favor of the status quo? She also said that she would prefer to replace this "crony capitalism" with real capitalism, in which businesses succeed or fail on their own merits, without special favors granted to them via taxpayer dollars. She alluded to the fact that corporations spend billions on campaign contributions and lobbying costs in order to receive favorable tax treatment -- billions that could otherwise be spent more productively on such things as R&D and other investments, a bi-product of which is new jobs. It's just basic economics, a subject of which Sarah Palin has a grasp.

 

I'm surprised she went on at such length about the downgrading of our credit rating, considering that S&P were pretty specific about what caused that.

 

Get used to it. Dangerously high debt and deficits racked up as a result of failed programs under the Obama Administration are going to be a big issue among all GOP candidates in this election cycle. The S&P credit downgrade could have been avoided, had Obama adopted a pro-growth and pro-business attitude instead of demand-side policies that supposedly generate the nonsensical Keynesian "multiplier effect," which Nancy Pelosi explained as something like: "Every new dollar issued in benefits will generate three new dollars in growth." Well, that growth never occurred. What did occur was a climate of fear among business leaders, wrought by uncertainty of the threat of new regulations, a tax code that is fluid and not permanent, and the potential future costs of ObamaCare. Those are the negative big three factors that exist under this administration, and which are not exactly conducive to the positive big three factors of growth, investment, and job creation -- which ultimately would result in more taxpayers and therefore more federal revenue. Obama, with all his spending and anti-business and anti-growth policies, is chiefly responsible for the S&P downgrade.

 

Sure there were some good and valid points in her speech (I did read it). There were good and valid points in speeches by Hitler (who was a genius at demagoguing his audience) and Mussolini too. I know, I know, I should be welcoming a Palin candidacy - and yet I am horrified by the fact that one is even possible.

 

It appears that you're so limited on factual talking points that you're reduced to comparing Sarah Palin with Hitler and Mussolini. Nice. Well done. When I was a kid, my dad would jokingly say, "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate." I learned much later that exaggeration is not a useful tool in a debate. Neither is hyperbole, which is exaggeration's twin sister. Sarah Palin and the policies she advocates bear absolutely zero similarities to those of Hitler or Mussolini, and if you were a man, you would apologize for not only making the comparison, but also for mentioning her with those two tyrants in the same paragraph. You could have (possibly) made a better point by explaining in a clear, concise, and factual way, why or what it is that makes you "horrified" that a Sarah Palin candidacy would be possible. In the absence of that, yours seems to be a classic case of what is commonly known as "Palin Derangement Syndrome."

[retro-man]

I was afraid I'd be accused of comparing Palin to Hitler - I'm not. All I am doing is pointing out that you can take the most wildly demagogic rant, and find a kernel of truth in it. My bad for walking into that one.

 

If 30 years of Reaganomics, culminating in the worst crash since 1929 hasn't put Hayek in the grave, then I guess nothing will. Looks like you're hell-bent on creating a Randian Libertopia, where our fate is not in our own hands, but rather in some "invisible hand", the existence of which is a matter of faith, not reason. Reason would look at what just happened and recognize it as the result of supply-side nonsense. In your mind, when businesses have lower taxes they will hire people. Explain to me please how you cut your way out of a slump. When people have money to buy the goods and services that businesses provide, they will create demand, which will result in hiring. If you think a nation of union-busted WalMart greeters are going to create that demand, you are hopelessly deluded.

 

 

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why some people seem hell-bent on turning this once great country into a hellish banana-republic.

[Edstock]

I can't for the life of me figure out why some people seem hell-bent on turning this once great country into a hellish banana-republic.

Because God wants it that way?

[akirby]

In your mind, when businesses have lower taxes they will hire people. Explain to me please how you cut your way out of a slump.

 

Corporate income taxes increase the cost of goods and services paid for by the general public. Period. End of discussion. It is no different than the cost of leasing a building, buying a property, paying property taxes, leasing vehicles, buying equipment, advertising, etc. It is a cost of doing business and it is factored into the cost of every service and product.

 

PLEASE tell me you understand this.

 

If you're a business owner and you want to expand your business or you need to hire additional people, the extra profit allows you to do that. Is it possible that the owner simply pockets the difference? Sure, but that's true of any business. And if you burden businesses with too much overhead then that takes away money that would otherwise be available for growth and expansion.

 

 

When people have money to buy the goods and services that businesses provide, they will create demand, which will result in hiring.

 

Exactly. And how better to give people more money to buy goods and services than to cut their income taxes? Every dollar you cut in personal income tax is another dollar that each person can use to buy more goods and services from those evil businesses who in turn can hire more people.

[grbeck]

Since 1980, the bottom 20 percent tier has seen its income grow by 26.4 percent; the second tie from the bottom has seen its income grow by 29.1 percent; the middle tier has seen its income grow by 36.9 percent; the fourth tier has seen its income grow by 40.4 percent; and the top tier has seen its income grow by 52 percent. The contention that the bottom 90 percent has seen income grow by only 1 percent since 1980 is false.

 

The idea that Reaganomics caused the recent crash is simply not accurate. Unless the core contention of Reaganomics is leaning on financial institutions to lower lending standards to poor people, because these standards are "racist. This, in turn, was one of the factors that led to a real estate bubble that has finally burst.

 

The bitter truth is that the current economic debacle was caused by government actions, not a slavish devotion to free-market economics, and those actions were originally advocated by those on the left on the political spectrum. Over time, financial institutions did find a way to cash in on the trend (exotic mortgages to allow people to "afford" ever-increasing house prices; no-doc loans; very high fees, etc.). This, incidentally, is part of what Sarah Palin is talking about when she criticizes "crony capitalism." Liberals are supposed to be against this, but the dirty truth is that they are up to their eyeballs in it, too. It's libertarians who correctly point out that liberal critics of Republicans are the ones with no clothes. For that, they get bashed as Randian dreamers.

 

I guess history is repeating itself, as the Great Depression was caused by government actions - President Hoover tried to bail out failing companies, RAISED taxes, throttled the growth of the money supply, and signed into law draconian protectionist measures that eliminated oversees markets as domestic demand was lagging and crippled the agricultural sector. All of which, incidentally, were advocated by those on the left, not slack-jawed conservatives. President Roosevelt compounded many of these mistakes before being saved by World War II. I guess we'll have to learn, too. Or wait for the Germans to invade Poland, and the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Edited September 6, 2011 by grbeck

[retro-man]

 

I guess history is repeating itself, as the Great Depression was caused by government actions - President Hoover tried to bail out failing companies, RAISED taxes, throttled the growth of the money supply, and signed into law draconian protectionist measures that eliminated oversees markets as domestic demand was lagging and crippled the agricultural sector. All of which, incidentally, were advocated by those on the left, not slack-jawed conservatives.

 

Yes, and in your mind, that's what we have been doing that got us in this mess, right? Raising taxes (nope - the opposite), throttling the growth of the money supply (QE 1 and 2), and signing into law draconian protectionist measures (which ones would those be)? So, since (in your imagination) we have done all those bad things, that's why we are in trouble, right? I think I understand the problem.

 

[Happy Gilmore]

I can't for the life of me figure out why some people seem hell-bent on turning this once great country into a hellish banana-republic.

 

And what was the answer from those Obama supporters?

[retro-man]

And what was the answer from those Obama supporters?

I can't help your amnesia man.

 

 

Let's see: Bush in power for 8 years, with Republican congress for the first 6, Obama in power for 2 years, with Republicans taking majority at first mid-term. Yeah, that's right, it must be all Obama's fault. Any simpleton knows that McCain / Palin would have turned this around by now.

 

Oh, speaking of those mid-term elections, how's that Republican jobs plan coming along? Let's see, they got in, the Bush tax cuts were extended, then we had the showdown over the debt ceiling, which caused our credit rating to be lowered, followed shortly after by our 0 jobs August. Great job guys! Steady as she goes!

 

[Mark B. Morrow]

Because God wants it that way?

 

 

I haven't heard Ms. Bachmann or Pat Robertson remark on God's apparent hatred of Texas. He's turning the place into Hell with fire and brimstone.

 

They were happy to discern God's Will from other natural disasters.

 

Maybe God is telling us that if we elect Rick Perry President he'll do to the country what he's doing to Texas.

[RangerM]

I haven't heard Ms. Bachmann or Pat Robertson remark on God's apparent hatred of Texas. He's turning the place into Hell with fire and brimstone.

 

They were happy to discern God's Will from other natural disasters.

 

Maybe God is telling us that if we elect Rick Perry President he'll do to the country what he's doing to Texas.

 

You may have a point.....when you consider conditions on the south side of Chicago before Obama came to office (and since).

Edited September 6, 2011 by RangerM