Remember that the Bush tax cuts are expiring because Democrats wanted it that way

[Little-Acorn]

Keep in mind that the only reason there's an expiration date on those tax cuts at all, is because various Democrats refused to vote for it unless he put in an expiration date, ten years after he passed them. Originally, George Bush designed them to be permanent cuts, that would not expire.

Republicans have since successfully enacted delays in the expiration but have been unable to eliminate it, due to Democrat insistence that they expire.

Now we are coming up on that (delayed) expiration date, on Jan. 1, 2013. Republicans have again been fighting to get rid of the expiration, but Democrats have been insisting that the expiration take place. Most recently, the Democrat have been saying that they must expire for higher incomes only, while Republicans have stuck to their insistence that nothing expire - that the tax cuts remain permanent.

In a crowning absurdity, Democrat have now announced that it's Republicans' fault that the tax cuts will expire! And this after more than ten years of Republicans trying to get them to get rid of the expiration date and make the cuts permanent, while Democrats, after putting the expiration date in in the first place, have steadfastly fought to make sure the DID expire.

You voted for it, Demmies. Now you can lie in it. And they do, they do.

[Larrymc]

Keep in mind that the only reason there's an expiration date on those tax cuts at all, is because various Democrats refused to vote for it unless he put in an expiration date, ten years after he passed them. Originally, George Bush designed them to be permanent cuts, that would not expire.

Republicans have since successfully enacted delays in the expiration but have been unable to eliminate it, due to Democrat insistence that they expire.

Now we are coming up on that (delayed) expiration date, on Jan. 1, 2013. Republicans have again been fighting to get rid of the expiration, but Democrats have been insisting that the expiration take place. Most recently, the Democrat have been saying that they must expire for higher incomes only, while Republicans have stuck to their insistence that nothing expire - that the tax cuts remain permanent.

In a crowning absurdity, Democrat have now announced that it's Republicans' fault that the tax cuts will expire! And this after more than ten years of Republicans trying to get them to get rid of the expiration date and make the cuts permanent, while Democrats, after putting the expiration date in in the first place, have steadfastly fought to make sure the DID expire.

You voted for it, Demmies. Now you can lie in it. And they do, they do.good info no surprise that the Democrats or to blame, and also no surprise that they are trying to blame the Republicans, it is ironic that there the ones who will have to deal with it, and weather he likes it or not Obama's on party put him here.

[Kathianne]

So far the Democrats are winning with their message:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/atf-poll-majority-will-blame-republicans-if-all-bush-149727.html


ATF poll: Majority will blame Republicans if all Bush tax cuts expire
By MAGGIE HABERMAN (http://www.politico.com/reporters/MaggieHaberman.html) | <abbr class="published" title="2012-11-15T06:55">11/15/12 6:55 PM EST</abbr>
A new poll by Hart Research's Geoff Garin, conducted for Americans for Tax Fairness — a group that wants the Bush-era tax cuts to end for those who earn more than $250,000 — found that a majority of voters cited changing the tax system as a key factor in their votes, and that the majority broke for President Barack Obama.


The survey also found that Democrats have changed the landscape on an issue that has eluded them for years — taxes. The survey found that most want the Bush-era cuts on top earners to expire, but that Republicans will shoulder blame if all of the Bush cuts, including those on the middle class, expire because a deal can't be reached.


From the memo, 67 percent of voters said "the goal of tax fairness" was a consideration in their vote, and 58 percent of them backed Obama, while 40 percent backed Romney. Also per the memo, 61 percent say they agree with Obama's position on extending the tax cuts for all but the top two percent of earners, and by a 15-point margin they will blame Republicans if a deal can't be reached.
The memo is here (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121115_poll_memo.html). The polling survey is here (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121115_poll_toplines.html), and a compilation of other data throughout the cycle on this issue is here (http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/121115_poll_pdf.html).


"The important takeaway from this research is that President Obama has the upper hand in this debate with the Republicans about whether or not to continue the Bush tax breaks for the top two percent, that on the merits, a subsantial majority of voters agree with his position that not only should the tax cut for the top two percent be eliminated, but he would veto any effort to extend it," Garin said in an interview...

[Larrymc]

So far the Democrats are winning with their message:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/atf-poll-majority-will-blame-republicans-if-all-bush-149727.htmlunfortunately this true, they expected the GOP to cave, it was the reason they reelected Obama, me personally i hope they don't, lets go over the cliff, it may be what this country needs for a reality check, sure it will get rough but at some point it has to happen, people or to spoiled in this country, but when things go south in this country is when the people really come to gather, the scary part is, there's a risk that it wont happen that way anymore

[Abbey Marie]

unfortunately this true, they expected the GOP to cave, it was the reason they reelected Obama, me personally i hope they don't, lets go over the cliff, it may be what this country needs for a reality check, sure it will get rough but at some point it has to happen, people or to spoiled in this country, but when things go south in this country is when the people really come to gather, the scary part is, there's a risk that it wont happen that way anymore

Off topic: Love your sig line, Larry.

Carry on.

[Kathianne]

unfortunately this true, they expected the GOP to cave, it was the reason they reelected Obama, me personally i hope they don't, lets go over the cliff, it may be what this country needs for a reality check, sure it will get rough but at some point it has to happen, people or to spoiled in this country, but when things go south in this country is when the people really come to gather, the scary part is, there's a risk that it wont happen that way anymore

I disagree. If the conservatives are seen as obstructing, they will pay for it. If they truly believe in what they've been saying for years, they will explain their position, why they think it's against the best interests of the country, what they predict will happen, then say to the American people, "We cannot in good conscious vote against the policies the people want to try. We will 'go along,' as you will, but we have stated why we fear these decisions.

[fj1200]

I disagree. If the conservatives are seen as obstructing, they will pay for it.

They didn't pay for it in '94 and I'd argue that they'll pay for it even more dearly if they go along. see '06 as evidence for their spending ways. You've still got to stand up for principals and if they do then the Dems will get exactly as they have legislated for. '10 was not an aberration and you could have massive swings toward conservatism in '14 if they stand strong, and they won't have the POTUS election swaying turnout.

[Jbird]

I disagree. If the conservatives are seen as obstructing, they will pay for it. If they truly believe in what they've been saying for years, they will explain their position, why they think it's against the best interests of the country, what they predict will happen, then say to the American people, "We cannot in good conscious vote against the policies the people want to try. We will 'go along,' as you will, but we have stated why we fear these decisions.Republicans are going to get blamed either way. If we do not go along with the tax hikes and things go to crap then we are to blame, if we compromise (cave) and things go to crap we will be blamed for caving. Either way we have been so villified that it doesn't matter. This country is going down it's just a matter of time.

[Larrymc]

I disagree. If the conservatives are seen as obstructing, they will pay for it. If they truly believe in what they've been saying for years, they will explain their position, why they think it's against the best interests of the country, what they predict will happen, then say to the American people, "We cannot in good conscious vote against the policies the people want to try. We will 'go along,' as you will, but we have stated why we fear these decisions.the truth is Republicans are expected to be fools and give the middle class tax breaks to make Obama look good, while taking, away all leverage to negotiate, Obama has not worked together on any thing,why would he after he gets more of what he wants, Standing on Principals cost the GOP the election and they shouldn't stop now.

[Robert A Whit]

I disagree. If the conservatives are seen as obstructing, they will pay for it. If they truly believe in what they've been saying for years, they will explain their position, why they think it's against the best interests of the country, what they predict will happen, then say to the American people, "We cannot in good conscious vote against the policies the people want to try. We will 'go along,' as you will, but we have stated why we fear these decisions.

Yup.

They did that for decades when it came to having slavery.

If republicans refuse to force Obama to slash debt right now, he will never slash debt or spending.

It's not in his DNA to cut spending.

[Kathianne]

I hate to disagree with the gentlemen, I just don't think conservative ideas are understood. It's not just the candidates that have caused the loses.

No, it's time for educating, by issues and votes. Telling the people, 'Here's what will happen and why, but you wanted this.' Natural consequences tend to lead to lasting memories.

[fj1200]

I hate to disagree with the gentlemen, I just don't think conservative ideas are understood. It's not just the candidates that have caused the loses.

No, it's time for educating, by issues and votes. Telling the people, 'Here's what will happen and why, but you wanted this.' Natural consequences tend to lead to lasting memories.

The rest of your post I don't disagree with, in fact dead on IMO, but I think we can resolutely say, "this is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is what we think will happen as a result." And then stand back and watch as they pick off just enough Republicans to pass what they want while at the same time remaining true.

[Robert A Whit]

The end won't come if he taxes the rich.

But that is not the issue.

I don't support the rich because I think higher taxes will put them into poverty.

I am honest. I stress that. When you are party to acts that impact on others, one must remain honest.

I prefer we can the system of taxing income. It is the wrong way to tax people.

We run into unfairness right away and trying to fix it suddenly they dream up deductions.

Look, if a tax is FAIR, no deductions need to be enforced.

Renters long asked, why tax them higher than home owners?

Taxes are used to run your life. If congress wants you to go into debt to buy a car, they allow you to get a tax benefit. If they decide enough cars were sold, they remove that gift.

Watch your freedom.

Freedom has to be defended.

At all costs.

All the time.

[Abbey Marie]

I hate to disagree with the gentlemen, I just don't think conservative ideas are understood. It's not just the candidates that have caused the loses.

No, it's time for educating, by issues and votes. Telling the people, 'Here's what will happen and why, but you wanted this.' Natural consequences tend to lead to lasting memories.

Kath, I honestly believe that people have a basic understanding of what the Republicans are trying to do. They just don't want to see past their immediate gratifications. National debt, for example, is like a phantasm to many folks.

[fj1200]

Kath, I honestly believe that people have a basic understanding of what the Republicans are trying to do. They just don't want to see past their immediate gratifications. National debt, for example, is like a phantasm to many folks.

I slightly disagree, I think they are still remembering the Bush years, the runup in debt and expansion of government for some and the meltdown for others. Either way it's a huge education project.

[Kathianne]

Kath, I honestly believe that people have a basic understanding of what the Republicans are trying to do. They just don't want to see past their immediate gratifications. National debt, for example, is like a phantasm to many folks.

I don't see that. Educated people, those that give every appearance of being capable of rational thought will say, "The right just hates the poor. They need 'help!'" They believe that conservatives are racists and just for the rich. When one argues them into a corner, they'll pretty much say, "Well you're not like that, but you should be a democrat." Yes, the do not get the consequences of the policies. They don't mind paying more in taxes, they need to have the connections made.

Have you seen this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html


Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.



This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.



The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.



It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.



George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.



...

[tailfins]

They didn't pay for it in '94 and I'd argue that they'll pay for it even more dearly if they go along. see '06 as evidence for their spending ways. You've still got to stand up for principals and if they do then the Dems will get exactly as they have legislated for. '10 was not an aberration and you could have massive swings toward conservatism in '14 if they stand strong, and they won't have the POTUS election swaying turnout.

What if Republicans cave, but not conservatives resulting in a bare minimum votes to pass the tax increases?

[Robert A Whit]

I slightly disagree, I think they are still remembering the Bush years, the runup in debt and expansion of government for some and the meltdown for others. Either way it's a huge education project.

If we compare Bush v Obama for increasing the debt, try to think of it this way.

Home runs

Bush 1

Obama 6

Bush does not come close Obama in running up debt. That title goes to Obama.

That is the message republicans should be shouting.

[fj1200]

What if Republicans cave, but not conservatives resulting in a bare minimum votes to pass the tax increases?

Then I'd say conservatism is clean and Republicans, via conservatives, can benefit in '14 assuming what we all think will happen. More debt and anemic growth are not positives for Dems who will be defending more Senate seats in '14 than Reps will (I think). I don't think Boehner's whip needs to try too hard to keep the ranks together. ;)

Also keep in mind that the tax increases are scheduled to occur regardless of any votes. Now if we can just keep the idiot Republican Senate nominees away from the ballot.


If we compare Bush v Obama for increasing the debt, try to think of it this way.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard; Bush is a solid #2 unfortunately.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=596064#post596064)
If we compare Bush v Obama for increasing the debt, try to think of it this way.





Don't pat yourself on the back too hard; Bush is a solid #2 unfortunately.

As I said, Bush added in 8 years what Obama added in maybe 3.

Also, Bush policies actually helped the nation. Bush was not at fault for the collapse but was responsible for thngs he really did do. Such as cut taxes.

Cutting taxes may seem dumb till you study the actual revenues during Bush.

They shot up like shot from a cannon.

[aboutime]

Everyone should just do as they (Congress) has done since Obama was elected in 2008. NOTHING.

No matter what any of us say. Nor what the Republicans do, or do not do. The Dems, and Obama claim they want to be in charge, and make all of the decisions...without Republican input, or without allowing the Minority to have a say..


So. I say. Let them.

Give them all the power over ALL OF THE PEOPLE they want.

It's the only true, honest way Americans across this nation who never pay attention...WILL begin to pay attention. And that includes the Dumb ones who voted for all of the Democrats, and Obama.

Let them get the FULL FLAVOR of getting what they asked for.

[Kathianne]

I've been pretty strong in voicing my opinion on the unique possibility of using this second term of disaster, to educate folks through natural consequences of what they've elected regarding policies and such. I wasn't listening to the left, really only to my own disbelief that the majority of people living through the last 6 years, would once again vote in this spender-in-chief and expand the left of the Senate.

What will it take? I've seen some very good arguments for sticking to 'no tax increases, without cuts on entitlements.'

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/11/28/and-now-a-word-from-bill-clinton/


And Now a Word from Bill Clinton on the Dangers of Raising Taxes
Posted By Ed Driscoll On November 28, 2012

Economist Dan Mitchell writes that “The No-Tax-Hike Pledge Is an IQ Test for Republicans.” (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/the-no-tax-hike-pledge-is-an-iq-test-for-republicans/) And that’s always a dangerous thing when you’re dealing with the Stupid Party:

Eugene Robinson is one of the group-think columnists at the Washington Post. Like E.J. Dionne, he is an utterly predictable proponent of big government. So it won’t surprise you to know that he wants taxes to go up and he’s a big fan of Obama’s class-warfare agenda.


He’s also a very partisan Democrat and wants the GOP to lose. Again, that’s not exactly a stunning revelation.


So when someone like Eugene Robinson starts offering advice to the Republican Party about tax policy, a logical person instantly should be suspicious that he’s actually trying to advance his own ideological and partisan agenda. . . . In this spirit, Mr. Robinson wants the GOP to abandon the no-tax-hike pledge.
And of course, so does Barry O, Charles Krauthammer adds (http://www.therightscoop.com/krauthammer-obama-isnt-trying-to-fix-our-fiscal-issues-hes-trying-to-destroy-the-republicans/):

[Obama is] not trying to fix our fiscal issues and problems. He’s trying to destroy the Republicans by insisting that there is a split among the Republicans on this issue which has held them together, the same way it destroyed President Bush Sr. when he went back on the pledge he made. This is a political attack on Republicans. There is no evidence right now that he has any interest in the real fiscal issue because he would have to talk about spending and entitlements and he isn’t.
Glenn Reynolds notes (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/158554/) that when George H.W. Bush was talked into raising taxes by Democrats, he was “hailed as a conciliator for a day, then savaged brutally by the same press until he lost the 1992 election.”


And then further bludgeoned for violating his one promise from 1988 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnUv7y4U2T0) in television ads produced by the same party that had previously begged him to raise taxes. It’s a definitive example of Tim Matheson’s famous line (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes?qt=qt0479944) from Animal House: “You f*cked up. You trusted us:”


http://youtu.be/vnUv7y4U2T0


The ads not only write themselves if the 2012 GOP folds as badly as Bush #41 — they’ve already been written.


Update: “What if the President Isn’t Bluffing,” (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/28/what-if-the-president-isnt-bluffing/) Bryan Preston asks:

A recession in 2013 obviously comes on the calendar before the mid-term elections of 2014. If President Obama and the Democrats intend to cause a recession and blame it on the Republicans, their real game could be to use a spike in economic misery to take the House back and hold the Senate in 2014. They already face a daunting task in both; Republicans have a strong grip on the House and have to defend fewer seats than the Democrats have to defend in 2014. The Democrats need something to upset that plus deal with history: the party in the White House tends to lose seats in mid-terms.


I’m not saying that this strategy is without risks, or that it is anywhere near something that a responsible president and party would even contemplate. But we’re dealing with a president who despite his rhetoric is far out of the mainstream on policy, and is quite capable of ignoring public opinion in the short term to achieve his goals in the long term. He could trade some pain in early 2013 for 18 months to spin that pain as the Republicans’ fault, and present himself and his party as the only defense for Americans who have found themselves depending on government services to survive. The Democrats are a party without elder statesmen who ever think of putting the country ahead of their party.

So the president may well not be bluffing, and he may be willing to risk hurting millions of Americans in order to make them loyal to him.
Read the whole thing.

[aboutime]

I've been pretty strong in voicing my opinion on the unique possibility of using this second term of disaster, to educate folks through natural consequences of what they've elected regarding policies and such. I wasn't listening to the left, really only to my own disbelief that the majority of people living through the last 6 years, would once again vote in this spender-in-chief and expand the left of the Senate.

What will it take? I've seen some very good arguments for sticking to 'no tax increases, without cuts on entitlements.'

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/11/28/and-now-a-word-from-bill-clinton/


Kathianne. Truthfully speaking. Mister Obama...by himself. Is not smart enough to Bluff on anything. Namely anything that includes Economics, or Mathematics that might test his intelligence to degree's, never seen by any sitting president.
Obama has, after all these years. Proven how inept, and absolutely unqualified he actually is when it comes to Economics of any degree. After all. Over the last FOUR YEARS. He has failed to comply with the Constitutional demands of submitting a Federal Budget.
Instead. His first attempt at the submission of a budget has been held in a state of LIMBO. Not even accepted, or approved by either house of Congress.
If there IS any Bluffing taking place by Obama. A sure guess would be. His ability to BLUFF his way by fooling millions of Americans into believing HE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT HE IS DOING.

[Kathianne]

AT, my point though was not Obama or even the Democrats, but the best path for conservatives via the electorate.

[Kathianne]

Just an observation. Remember Kate Perry being 'all out there, in the tight dress' for Obama during the election? Now?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/27/Katy-Perry-Teams-Up-With-Anti-Taxers-to-Fight-Big-Government


Katy Perry Teams Up With Anti-Taxers to Fight Big Government http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/Friends%20of%20Obama/Celebs/katy-perry-obama-dress-afp.jpg



A coalition of 125 celebrity musicians, including pop singer Katy Perry, have joined forces with anti-tax advocates including Grover Norquist and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) to oppose an intellectual property "reform" bill that critics charge expands government to the detriment of the free market. Opponents say the Internet Radio Fairness Act, being pushed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), would mandatorily lower the licensing fees paid by Internet radio giant Pandora, moving the royalties system further away from a free market and instead entrenching a system in which government sets compensation rates while picking winners and losers.


It has anti-tax and free market groups including Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), NTU, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the American Conservative Union and Citizens Against Government Waste crying foul on those grounds.


In his letter to members of Congress, ATR's Norquist asserts "the standard in IRFA moves in an even worse direction towards forced below-market rates."


Artists are concerned that if passed, the bill would amount to government artificially limiting the earnings that musicians - celebrity and not - are able to make from their trade in the marketplace.

...



Oh yes, focus on the Hollywood, Music, and Sports industries. The success of these folks most definitely put them in the 1%.

[Larrymc]

Just an observation. Remember Kate Perry being 'all out there, in the tight dress' for Obama during the election? Now?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/27/Katy-Perry-Teams-Up-With-Anti-Taxers-to-Fight-Big-Government im surprised she flipped, most Obama fans are loyal, they follow blindly, like a love struck little girl, seriously have they ever heard of to good to be true??

[Kathianne]

im surprised she flipped, most Obama fans are loyal, they follow blindly, like a love struck little girl, seriously have they ever heard of to good to be true??

New meme for those that live through those times:

"Never trust anyone under 30."

[aboutime]

im surprised she flipped, most Obama fans are loyal, they follow blindly, like a love struck little girl, seriously have they ever heard of to good to be true??


Larrymc. Not a surprise to me. Celebrities. Namely those from Hollyweird. Tend to follow the MONEY. If it looks good financially for them. That's how they BEND. If not. They drop whoever they supported like that HOT POTATO until their manager tells them to Apologize, and FOLLOW THE MONEY again.

[Little-Acorn]

Everyone should just do as they (Congress) has done since Obama was elected in 2008. NOTHING.

No matter what any of us say. Nor what the Republicans do, or do not do. The Dems, and Obama claim they want to be in charge, and make all of the decisions...without Republican input, or without allowing the Minority to have a say..


So. I say. Let them.

Give them all the power over ALL OF THE PEOPLE they want.

It's the only true, honest way Americans across this nation who never pay attention...WILL begin to pay attention. And that includes the Dumb ones who voted for all of the Democrats, and Obama.

Let them get the FULL FLAVOR of getting what they asked for.
So far, so good. Dems are getting exactly what they want.

Elections have consequences.

[aboutime]

So far, so good. Dems are getting exactly what they want.

Elections have consequences.


And with that. They, and Obama are slamming every person who voted for them, and him. Kinda like mysterious water-filled balloon from the roof upon the Unsuspecting, Uneducated, Perpetual Democrat victims who just follow, and never achieve enough knowledge to LEAD.

This is what ALL of those people, or Americans voted for so convincingly back in November. And now. Come January 1st. It's not going to be such a HAPPY NEW YEAR when they realize how they were Bamboozled, and Tricked into giving their lives to Politicians who DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM.

[gabosaurus]

The Dems have submitted a plan to avoid the cuts. The Republicans oppose it because the tax cuts to the wealthy would take money out of their pockets.
If the country goes over the cliff, it will be seen as the fault of Republicans, because they are obstructing a plan that was previously set out.

Some part of the Fiscal Cliff standoff are positive. The huge cuts to defense spending are badly needed.
Other parts of it will have negative results.

The Republicans don't want to bring the situation to a vote because they know the current plan on the table would pass.

[aboutime]

The Dems have submitted a plan to avoid the cuts. The Republicans oppose it because the tax cuts to the wealthy would take money out of their pockets.
If the country goes over the cliff, it will be seen as the fault of Republicans, because they are obstructing a plan that was previously set out.

Some part of the Fiscal Cliff standoff are positive. The huge cuts to defense spending are badly needed.
Other parts of it will have negative results.

The Republicans don't want to bring the situation to a vote because they know the current plan on the table would pass.

Forrest Gump has spoken. Thank you Forrest.

"NOW. Run!"

[Trigg]

The Dems have submitted a plan to avoid the cuts. The Republicans oppose it because the tax cuts to the wealthy would take money out of their pockets.
If the country goes over the cliff, it will be seen as the fault of Republicans, because they are obstructing a plan that was previously set out.

Some part of the Fiscal Cliff standoff are positive. The huge cuts to defense spending are badly needed.
Other parts of it will have negative results.

The Republicans don't want to bring the situation to a vote because they know the current plan on the table would pass.


It will be seen as the republicans fault because the MSM is in the pocket of the president and they no longer bother to actually report the news.

This is an excellent article regarding the "cliff", some options and the consequences of them.

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm


Among the laws set to change at midnight on December 31, 2012, are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, a rollback of the "Bush tax cuts" from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect. According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."




In dealing with the fiscal cliff, U.S. lawmakers have a choice among three options, none of which are particularly attractive

1.They can let the current policy scheduled for the beginning of 2013 – which features a number of tax increases and spending cuts that are expected to weigh heavily on growth and possibly drive the economy back into a recession – go into effect. The plus side: the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, would be cut in half.

2.They can cancel some or all of the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts, which would add to the deficit and increase the odds that the United States could face a crisis similar to that which is occurring in Europe (http://bonds.about.com/od/advancedbonds/a/What-Is-The-European-Debt-Crisis.htm). The flip side of this, of course, is that the United States' debt will continue to grow.

3.They could take a middle course, opting for an approach that would address the budget issues to a limited extent, but that would have a more modest impact on growth.


Unfortunately, the fiscal cliff isn't the only problem facing the United States right now. At some point in the first quarter, the country will again hit the "debt ceiling" - the same issue that roiled the markets in the summer of 2011 and prompted the automatic spending cuts that make up a portion of the fiscal cliff.

[aboutime]

It has never been a secret that the Democrats would lay all blame on Republicans. No matter what happens.

Harry Reid accused the Speaker of all sorts of things. When the reality is. Harry Reid is merely hiding his own desperation, ignorance, and stupidity from the DESPERATE, IGNORANT and STUPID who voted for him, and Obama.

I hope the Republicans let this take place. The DUMB have already decided they need to blame Republicans. SO...What else is new?

Obama, and the Dems want to be in charge. They own the Econonmy, no matter what happens on January 1st.

Let them explain to their constituents, and blame Republicans as much as they want. Obama has nothing to lose. But Democrats looking forward to the next election cycle STAND TO LOSE EVERYTHING...lickity-split if they continue to back REID, PELOSI and OBAMA.

[Trigg]

What government programs would be affected by spending cuts? About $1.2 trillion in federal spending cuts are scheduled to kick in next year, or roughly $110 billion a year for 10 years. Those reductions would be divided equally between the Pentagon and "discretionary" programs, or those that don't have earmarked funds. That means that there could be cuts in everything from infrastructure to schools, to public health and homeland security.
Will Medicare be cut? The government-run health care program for seniors would face a 2 percent cut in Medicare payments to providers and insurance plans, which amounts to a reduction of $11 billion next year.
What programs would not be cut? Social Security, Medicaid, supplemental security income, refundable tax credits, the children's health insurance program, the food stamp program and veterans' benefits are excluded from the cuts scheduled under the cliff. The White House has also said that military personnel would be exempt from the cuts.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57561036/what-falling-off-the-fiscal-cliff-means-for-you/

Awesome so the gov. has no problem cutting school funding, and public health. But they won't touch food stamps and medicaid which are rife with fraud and abuse. Amazing.

[Kathianne]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57561036/what-falling-off-the-fiscal-cliff-means-for-you/

Awesome so the gov. has no problem cutting school funding, and public health. But they won't touch food stamps and medicaid which are rife with fraud and abuse. Amazing.

Personally I'd be thrilled to have the feds out of education altogether. Oh that would include all their mandates on schools too.

It seems way past commonsense to say that 'multi-needs' children do not belong in the public schools. They deserve care, just like provided by social security disability payments. That shouldn't be on the back of the schools, most of which is locally raised funding through property taxes.

I am not speaking of 'special education' in general. Learning disabilities, those with severe disabilities, but educable, should be accommodated for. However, those that are incapable of ever holding any sort of position; ever being able to care for their own hygiene; ever be able make a meal or even eat without assistance, deserve care, but not through the school system.

The costs to schools that can afford it, are taking the money needed for others. The funding is wrong. There are often a 5:1 ratio on the most fragile of these children. In a better milieu there wouldn't need to be such. The costs would be better and in all likelihood so would be the care. I've been appalled at seeing a child so medically fragile that a nurse is assigned to ride the school bus both ways with her, as well as being at school all day with her. Truth is, the child really belongs in an ambulance, but that's not allowed. The school pays for the nurse. The child moans, when awake, which is only a small part of the day, mostly she sleeps. She is diapered. She cannot partake in any lessons of any sort. She is fed through a stomach feed.

Most of the year she's absent, though the school district still is required to pay for the nurse during school hours. I'm assuming either parents insurance or medicaid picks up the costs for frequent hospitalizations.

Ok, this is a rant of a sort. I really do feel that as a society we need to care for the least of our brothers, but I don't think the burden should be falling on the local school taxes. I shudder to think how such a child is dealt with in Chicago or Detroit public schools.

[jimnyc]

It's hilarious watching the news and hearing some blame the republicans for not allowing cuts. Think about that and let it sink in. The Bush era TAX CUTS are going to expire. One side wants cuts all the way around and less spending. The other side wants a portion to pay for cuts for others. One wants ALL cuts - the other wants PARTIAL cuts. You would have to be blind and a dolt to blame the one who wants ALL cuts for not having cuts.

[Kathianne]

It's hilarious watching the news and hearing some blame the republicans for not allowing cuts. Think about that and let it sink in. The Bush era TAX CUTS are going to expire. One side wants cuts all the way around and less spending. The other side wants a portion to pay for cuts for others. One wants ALL cuts - the other wants PARTIAL cuts. You would have to be blind and a dolt to blame the one who wants ALL cuts for not having cuts.

and the side that wants 'all' to keep the tax cuts, is also the one battling for cutting spending. But that is not mentioned, other than with derision from the MSM.

[jimnyc]

and the side that wants 'all' to keep the tax cuts, is also the one battling for cutting spending. But that is not mentioned, other than with derision from the MSM.

Republicans want the cuts and want to cut as much spending as possible... and at the same time you will hear liberals blaming them for the immense debt, that is skyrocketing daily. It's almost as if they are saying "If you don't increase rates on the rich, we will then tax those under $250k".

Republicans are saying, tax less all the way around.

I think it's VERY clear.

[James]

It has never been a secret that the Democrats would lay all blame on Republicans. No matter what happens.

Harry Reid accused the Speaker of all sorts of things. When the reality is. Harry Reid is merely hiding his own desperation, ignorance, and stupidity from the DESPERATE, IGNORANT and STUPID who voted for him, and Obama.

I hope the Republicans let this take place. The DUMB have already decided they need to blame Republicans. SO...What else is new?

Obama, and the Dems want to be in charge. They own the Econonmy, no matter what happens on January 1st.

Let them explain to their constituents, and blame Republicans as much as they want. Obama has nothing to lose. But Democrats looking forward to the next election cycle STAND TO LOSE EVERYTHING...lickity-split if they continue to back REID, PELOSI and OBAMA.


Granted, that's fairly similar to what Republicans did before this past election. The only real difference is that you're unhappy about it. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Welcome, James!! I'm afraid of looking naive, but I am, who's that in your avatar?

[James]

Welcome, James!! I'm afraid of looking naive, but I am, who's that in your avatar?

Thank you. ;)

As for my avatar, it's an image of Peter Kropokin, a Russian revolutionist.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thank you. ;)

As for my avatar, it's an image of Peter Kropokin, a Russian revolutionist.

Welcome, are you American??

[James]

Welcome, are you American??

Yes, I am. And may I ask what your user title signifies?

[jimnyc]

http://i.imgur.com/yMNI6.jpg

[aboutime]

Granted, that's fairly similar to what Republicans did before this past election. The only real difference is that you're unhappy about it. :rolleyes:


Whoever you are, or think you are James. I am not unhappy about it. I am unhappy about the phony who claims to be our president, destroying everything millions of Americans have given their lives to protect. And that goes for our children and grandchildren too!
Now. Tell us exactly WHAT you claim Republicans did before this past election. For starters.

And, as for your avatar. Russian revolutionist tells us what we need to know about what you are bringing here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, I am. And may I ask what your user title signifies?


http://library.flawlesslogic.com/grimm_3.htm

<center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">
<tbody>
<center>The Principal Germanic Gods</center><center>Jakob Grimm</center>

</tbody>
</center><center style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">
<tbody>
ZIU (TYR): THE WAR GODIf Wodan and Donar can be regarded as lofty gods of heaven, then Ziu or Tius may be regarded as even more so since his name directly expresses the idea of the sky, while Wodan signifies the air, Donar the storm. Just as Wodan directs victories, so Ziu reveals himself as the actual war god, Saxnot as the sword god, Donar as hammer god, Wodan as spear god. Like Wodan, Ziu also seems to roar down from the sky as a storm.The old Nordic name Tysdagr (Tuesday) coincides to that of the Eddic god Tyr. Represented in the Edda as Odin's son but in the song of Hymir as son of the giant Hymir and his mistress, he seems subordinate to the former in power and importance. But he also completely accords with him, insofar as both direct battle and war and the glory of victory emanates from one as from the other. Primeval times attributed all glory to the warlike; indeed along with Wodan and Ziu it had need of a third war god, Hadu. The subtler differences in the cult are now concealed from us. Undoubtedly, mountains were hallowed to Ziu as to Wodan and Donar. It will only remain uncertain which god, whether Wodan or Ziu, is meant by a particular name.
Ziu is brave and eager for battle like Ares, granting abundance of fame, but also cruel and bloodthirsty; he raves and rages like Zeus and Wodan. He pleases ravens and wolves who follow him on the battlefield, although these creatures again must be assigned more to Wodan. Battle songs were certainly also composed in Ziu's honor, possibly warlike dances were held, to which I link the still existing and widespread custom of the ceremonial sword-dance which was completely proper to the god of the sword. Besides a sword the war god is appropriately given a helmet. TheEdda does not emphasize the war sword, it makes no mention of Saxnot from whom the Saxons took the name Schwengenoss (sword comrade) because they carried the stone sword or placed the god at the head of their tribe.
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/tyr.jpgThe Edda represents Tyr as one-handed because the wolf in whose jaws he had placed his right hand as a pledge, tore it off at the elbow. I prefer to accept the appropriate explanation by Wackernagel: Tyr appeared one-handed because he would only grant victory to one of the combatants, in the same way that Hadu, another god of fortune in war, or Pluto and Fortune with the Greeks and Romans, are represented as sightless because they blindly distribute their gifts.


</tbody>
</center>
Tyr- God of war, God of single combat, God of justice.. I have German/Viking /Native American blood in my veins.
History and Norse mythology a passion of mine. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

It appears the Republicans are going to cave:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-fiscal-cliff-fight-will-end-unhappily-for-republicans/article/2517099#.UN8M8bb2FNh


...

So a deal will most likely be done. But the bottom line is that the fiscal cliff fight will not end happily for Republicans. They will have given in on what was an article of faith — that taxes should not be raised on anybody, poor or rich — in return for essentially nothing. All they will have is a plan to fight again, soon.
<!--Iframe Tag --> <!-- begin ZEDO for channel: HLW on Washington Examiner 615x250 , publisher: Washington Examiner , Ad Dimension: 615x250 - 615 x 250 -->

[aboutime]

It appears the Republicans are going to cave:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-fiscal-cliff-fight-will-end-unhappily-for-republicans/article/2517099#.UN8M8bb2FNh


Kathianne. Seriously. Is anyone honestly surprised with this if it takes place?

I can't help but constantly remind myself. THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS. End of story.

[James]

Tyr- God of war, God of single combat, God of justice.. I have German/Viking /Native American blood in my veins.
History and Norse mythology a passion of mine. -Tyr

How interesting! I've never been that interested in mythology, but that was a good read. :clap:

[James]

Whoever you are, or think you are James. I am not unhappy about it. I am unhappy about the phony who claims to be our president, destroying everything millions of Americans have given their lives to protect. And that goes for our children and grandchildren too!
Now. Tell us exactly WHAT you claim Republicans did before this past election. For starters.

And, as for your avatar. Russian revolutionist tells us what we need to know about what you are bringing here.

Oh trust me, I'm equally thrilled about our president. His policies on defense, health care, taxation, education and regulation are an absolute mess. Not to mention how productive he's been these past few years.

Republicans? Well, I'm just claiming congressional republicans should've given in in a little more and not closed shop until the end of the election.

So, what exactly does my avatar tell you? :laugh:

[James]

It appears the Republicans are going to cave:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-the-fiscal-cliff-fight-will-end-unhappily-for-republicans/article/2517099#.UN8M8bb2FNh

That's not surprising. If anyone's going to cave, it's republicans - Obama's been showing a pretty hard line streak in the past few weeks and Boehner's seems to be giving a little more each time around.

[aboutime]

Oh trust me, I'm equally thrilled about our president. His policies on defense, health care, taxation, education and regulation are an absolute mess. Not to mention how productive he's been these past few years.

Republicans? Well, I'm just claiming congressional republicans should've given in in a little more and not closed shop until the end of the election.

So, what exactly does my avatar tell you? :laugh:


It speaks about someone who advocates, and even wrote about Anarchy. Nuff said?

[James]

It speaks about someone who advocates, and even wrote about Anarchy. Nuff said?

Yes, which makes it fairly evident where I stand politically. I don't know if you have any problem with anarchist communists, but I trust you'll be civil about it. ;)

[aboutime]

Yes, which makes it fairly evident where I stand politically. I don't know if you have any problem with anarchist communists, but I trust you'll be civil about it. ;)


Sure thing James. As a retired, 30 year Navy veteran who didn't just fall off the turnip truck this morning. I wouldn't call not trusting, or disliking anarchists, or Communists a problem. It's how I feel about anyone who would intentionally betray, or attempt to destroy the nation I grew up in, for any reason.

[jimnyc]

Yes, which makes it fairly evident where I stand politically. I don't know if you have any problem with anarchist communists, but I trust you'll be civil about it. ;)

Can you give me the cliff notes on what exactly an "anarchist communist" means, politically?

[James]

Can you give me the cliff notes on what exactly an "anarchist communist" means, politically?

Anarchism is a kind of socialism that in turn can be broken up in to numerous ideologies. Anarchist Communism is one of those ideologies:

Supporters of Anarchist Communism generally believe neither anarchism, nor communism, can exist independently.

A few important points:



It's left wing.
It's collectivist, as opposed to individualist.
It calls for the abolition of state, organized religion and social classes.
It calls for the collective ownership of the means of production.
It calls for the highest form of social organization to be communes.

[aboutime]

Anarchism is a kind of socialism that in turn can be broken up in to numerous ideologies. Anarchist Communism is one of those ideologies:

Supporters of Anarchist Communism generally believe neither anarchism, nor communism, can exist independently.

A few important points:



It's left wing.
It's collectivist, as opposed to individualist.
It calls for the abolition of state, organized religion and social classes.
It calls for the collective ownership of the means of production.
It calls for the highest form of social organization to be communes.




James. All of that, and what I read in reference to that man in your avatar tells me. You are at the wrong Forum. You can share your idea's as much as you want. But the second you try to tell anyone else they are wrong for not feeling, or believing as you do. Your welcome here will be short-lived.

[James]

James. All of that, and what I read in reference to that man in your avatar tells me. You are at the wrong Forum. You can share your idea's as much as you want. But the second you try to tell anyone else they are wrong for not feeling, or believing as you do. Your welcome here will be short-lived.

What about my political views tells you that I'll do this? Or is this just some backhanded way of saying leftists are inferior to you? :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Anarchism is a kind of socialism that in turn can be broken up in to numerous ideologies. Anarchist Communism is one of those ideologies:

Supporters of Anarchist Communism generally believe neither anarchism, nor communism, can exist independently.

A few important points:



It's left wing.
It's collectivist, as opposed to individualist.
It calls for the abolition of state, organized religion and social classes.
It calls for the collective ownership of the means of production.
It calls for the highest form of social organization to be communes.



Thanks! Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but I'll be curious to see/hear your stances going forward. Do you find a lot of people supporting your POV, or more that disagree?


James. All of that, and what I read in reference to that man in your avatar tells me. You are at the wrong Forum. You can share your idea's as much as you want. But the second you try to tell anyone else they are wrong for not feeling, or believing as you do. Your welcome here will be short-lived.

We shouldn't sound that way. We WANT those with differing opinions, and he sure does seem polite thus far. Without differences in stances and opinions, the conversations would die out. We need more of the left here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Thanks! Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but I'll be curious to see/hear your stances going forward. Do you find a lot of people supporting your POV, or more that disagree?



We shouldn't sound that way. We WANT those with differing opinions, and he sure does seem polite thus far. Without differences in stances and opinions, the conversations would die out. We need more of the left here.

I agree as long as he is polite about it I'd like to hear his views. Already know his prime had been tried and failed every time it was tried. In my book he is welcome to try to build a better mousetrap but he shouldn't expect anybody to cheer unless he can prove that it actually works. So far nobody has proven that it does. Nobody ever!-Tyr

[James]

I agree as long as he is polite about it I'd like to hear his views. Already know his prime had been tried and failed every time it was tried. In my book he is welcome to try to build a better mousetrap but he shouldn't expect anybody to cheer unless he can prove that it actually works. So far nobody has proven that it does. Nobody ever!-Tyr

Well, the reason it's failed is fairly complex. In the case of folks like Bakunin, Cafiero and Kropotkin, the failure was a product of persecution by the state. In the case of Spain, anarchists just lost the war. In the case of Argentina, the state was rebuilt(though I'll admit that I'm not completely familiar with the events surrounding this.)

[aboutime]

Thanks! Doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but I'll be curious to see/hear your stances going forward. Do you find a lot of people supporting your POV, or more that disagree?



We shouldn't sound that way. We WANT those with differing opinions, and he sure does seem polite thus far. Without differences in stances and opinions, the conversations would die out. We need more of the left here.


I didn't tell him we didn't want his differing opinions. In fact. I offered my opinion in response to his question as politely as I could.

[fj1200]

Yes, which makes it fairly evident where I stand politically. I don't know if you have any problem with anarchist communists, but I trust you'll be civil about it. ;)

Have you run across some-time posters here Agnapostate and BlackandRed1913 elsewhere? There are a few AC threads around here.

[fj1200]

Well, the reason it's failed is fairly complex. In the case of folks like Bakunin, Cafiero and Kropotkin, the failure was a product of persecution by the state. In the case of Spain, anarchists just lost the war. In the case of Argentina, the state was rebuilt(though I'll admit that I'm not completely familiar with the events surrounding this.)

Coercion is not that complex.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, the reason it's failed is fairly complex. In the case of folks like Bakunin, Cafiero and Kropotkin, the failure was a product of persecution by the state. In the case of Spain, anarchists just lost the war. In the case of Argentina, the state was rebuilt(though I'll admit that I'm not completely familiar with the events surrounding this.)

Its not possible to have a classless society that's existence depends upon the constant application of brute force.
Without that force no society can exist least of all one designed to force man to not pursue his selfish and greedy nature! Only by appealing to the submission of a supreme being can any attempt at that be even remotely successful. Socialism, Marxism , Communism any form of classless society never succeeds based solely upon ideology because individuals inherently refuse to be united with others by force. The State must always use constant and extreme force and that use destroys any appeal that the ideology seeks to instill into the population that it must control.
In every case of failure this was already there working . Even our pilgrims tried it and saw its flaws. Those flaws are man's nature. Man's nature absolutely refuses to be tamed by brute force or by any ideology that seeks its own advancement over the wants and desires of its subjects. -Tyr

[Gaffer]

Have you run across some-time posters here Agnapostate and BlackandRed1913 elsewhere? There are a few AC threads around here.

Agna's mentor?

[mundame]

Supporters of Anarchist Communism generally believe neither anarchism, nor communism, can exist independently.

A few important points:



It's left wing.
It's collectivist, as opposed to individualist.
It calls for the abolition of state, organized religion and social classes.
It calls for the collective ownership of the means of production.
It calls for the highest form of social organization to be communes.




Collectivism IS the state, however --- that's what Soviet Russia found.

Anarchism means no government at all, but that can't work because it's like the Congo, everyone strong kills everyone weak, Hobbes and all that. Collectivism is simply a kind of government, but you say it isn't a government........but it is. We already saw all that going on for 77 years, and it didn't work. Bigtime.

[mundame]

I'm not interested in anarchism. Can't work and they used to throw a lot of bombs, that pretty much sums up anarchism to me. Anarchists can't organize so they get their lunch eaten by communists, who can. Both are bad systems of terrible oppression: anarchy because of all the crimes that they do themselves (all the heads of state they shot and threw bombs at around 1900) and because they would allow everyone to do even more crimes than they do themselves, just constant killing everywhere by criminals, like in Africa. Occupy was mostly anarchists. Dirty, silly, disorderly, failed. Anarchists started World War I by shooting the Archduke Ferdinand, and provoked Krystallnacht by killing a German ambassador; also the guy who burnt down the Reichstag and brought in Hitler's "emergency" dictatorship was a Dutch anarchist, or possibly a communist. I've thought about it and read about it but I cannot think of one positive thing to say for anarchy. I think it's like street robbery or rape: it HAS no positives. It's just totally bad.

Anyway, on the thread topic.

The two things I'm watching for the next couple days: 1) do they pass something over the weekend?
2) If not, does the stock market crash like it did when Congress wouldn't pass TARP? When that happened, Congress quickly rethought the matter and passed TARP on an emergency basis.

This may be part of the strategy now: get the public and the Market all scared by constant media scare talk so that danger of the stock market collapsing big time from all the scare talk forces Congress to vote whatever the administration wants.

I personally think letting the sequesters go on would be the best way for the USA to avoid the economic and political collapse Europe is now in the middle of. Stop the deficits, stop the overspending.

[Robert A Whit]

Anarchism is a kind of socialism that in turn can be broken up in to numerous ideologies. Anarchist Communism is one of those ideologies:

Supporters of Anarchist Communism generally believe neither anarchism, nor communism, can exist independently.

A few important points:



It's left wing.
It's collectivist, as opposed to individualist.
It calls for the abolition of state, organized religion and social classes.
It calls for the collective ownership of the means of production.
It calls for the highest form of social organization to be communes.



None of that can be achieved without the enormous loss of lives and freedom.

You offer nothing worth that many lives or their loss of freedom.

[Robert A Whit]

I'm not interested in anarchism. Can't work and they used to throw a lot of bombs, that pretty much sums up anarchism to me. Anarchists can't organize so they get their lunch eaten by communists, who can. Both are bad systems of terrible oppression: anarchy because of all the crimes that they do themselves (all the heads of state they shot and threw bombs at around 1900) and because they would allow everyone to do even more crimes than they do themselves, just constant killing everywhere by criminals, like in Africa. Occupy was mostly anarchists. Dirty, silly, disorderly, failed. Anarchists started World War I by shooting the Archduke Ferdinand, and provoked Krystallnacht by killing a German ambassador; also the guy who burnt down the Reichstag and brought in Hitler's "emergency" dictatorship was a Dutch anarchist, or possibly a communist. I've thought about it and read about it but I cannot think of one positive thing to say for anarchy. I think it's like street robbery or rape: it HAS no positives. It's just totally bad.

Anyway, on the thread topic.

The two things I'm watching for the next couple days: 1) do they pass something over the weekend?
2) If not, does the stock market crash like it did when Congress wouldn't pass TARP? When that happened, Congress quickly rethought the matter and passed TARP on an emergency basis.

This may be part of the strategy now: get the public and the Market all scared by constant media scare talk so that danger of the stock market collapsing big time from all the scare talk forces Congress to vote whatever the administration wants.

I personally think letting the sequesters go on would be the best way for the USA to avoid the economic and political collapse Europe is now in the middle of. Stop the deficits, stop the overspending.

You are confusing anarchy with violence.

That you live in harmony with your family, friends and neighbors is anarchy.

Those that bomb and maim commit violence.

Nobody forces you to not kill, rob or physically harm those in your area. You do it with no law forcing you to not create havoc. You are expressing anarchy.

Anarchy is no system. It is what you use perhaps all the time.

As to your questions .... I don't know.

I flipped off Meet the press when I saw Gregory talking to Obama. I got a dose on ABC of a better program though Stephanopolis was not present. That made it better.

[aboutime]

Anyone who claims to Be an Anarchist, or one who follows the Anarchy route in life. Is, in my opinion. Worthless to any cause if they are convinced destroying, or the destruction of others property, or their lives will win them recognition.
In other words. Anarchists who come here, making phony excuses...as we have seen. Do not deserve to be here.

[Kathianne]

James best defined 'anarchy' in his description of anarchist communist. Here's the Oxford definition:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anarchy


Definition of anarchy
<!-- End of DIV entryType--><section class="senseGroup">noun<h:span class="neutral"> [</h:span>mass noun<h:span class="neutral">]</h:span>

1a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems: he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy

<!-- End of DIV senseInnerWrapper-->



2absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

<!-- End of DIV senseInnerWrapper-->

</section><section class="etymology gradientified scrollerBlock">Origin: mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'


<!-- End of DIV gradientInnerWrapper senseInnerWrapper--></section>

By definition alone, neither families, nor communities are best served through anarchy. It's totally Hobbesian.

[fj1200]

Anyone who claims to Be an Anarchist, or one who follows the Anarchy route in life. Is, in my opinion. Worthless to any cause if they are convinced destroying, or the destruction of others property, or their lives will win them recognition.
In other words. Anarchists who come here, making phony excuses...as we have seen. Do not deserve to be here.

It seems you may be buying into the current media definition of "anarchy." Here's a thread about where James might be coming from.

Anarchist Communism (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?25879-Anarchist-Communism)

[Robert A Whit]

Collectivism IS the state, however --- that's what Soviet Russia found.

Anarchism means no government at all, but that can't work because it's like the Congo, everyone strong kills everyone weak, Hobbes and all that. Collectivism is simply a kind of government, but you say it isn't a government........but it is. We already saw all that going on for 77 years, and it didn't work. Bigtime.

It looks to me like you do understand it means there is no government, but apparently you also believe in force so long as it is done on some people rather than all. but government is force used against all people. The Congo is a poor example since the problems that you act like you blame on anarchy are more likely blamed on government rather than non government.

We agree that collectiveism is government and one that must be also imposed by force. So far, every collective system has resulted in the mass murders of the populations where it has been tried.

This is the definition of government used by some you may call anarchists.

"Government -an unnecessary delusion based on the evil (anti human) sttempt by people to surrender their humanity (i.e. free will) and the responsibility for their lives to a non-existant entity they invented for the purpose of relieving them of the fear of te responsibility for exercising their own moral judgment." (source - There's no government like no government; author - Bill Malloy)

[Robert A Whit]

James best defined 'anarchy' in his description of anarchist communist. Here's the Oxford definition:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anarchy



By definition alone, neither families, nor communities are best served through anarchy. It's totally Hobbesian.

That is not meant by the definition. By definition the best form of freedom is anarchy.

Anarchy is not to be confused with violence since anarchy is what we use as much as we can.
When you put some other in charge of your life, you gave up freedom.

Freedom is the premium state to live under.

I have yet to hear of any law that actually prevents crimes.

[Robert A Whit]

James. All of that, and what I read in reference to that man in your avatar tells me. You are at the wrong Forum. You can share your idea's as much as you want. But the second you try to tell anyone else they are wrong for not feeling, or believing as you do. Your welcome here will be short-lived.

Didn't you just do that to James? Actually I know. It is precisely what you did to him.

I don't believe that Jimnyc runs that sort of forum.

The right thing to do is explain your ideas and he explains his.

Depending on the parties goals, some will claim you won, others claim he will win.

[Kathianne]

Didn't you just do that to James? Actually I know. It is precisely what you did to him.

I don't believe that Jimnyc runs that sort of forum.

Teh right thing to do is explain your ideas and he explains his.

Depending on the parties goals, some will claim you won, others claim he will win.

This response has zero to do with the post quoted by you. I request that it be removed by staff.

[Robert A Whit]

This response has zero to do with the post quoted by you. I request that it be removed by staff.

Actually your assessment is dead wrong. And I trust that Jimnyc is far too fair than to engage in your vendetta. In short, he will leave the full post by both AT and me to stand.

[jimnyc]

Post #77 by Robert was a multi-quote message and had quoted both Kathianne and a post by aboutime. Roberts reply to those quotes had nothing to do with Kath's quoted post. I have not touched any of Robert's post/property, but at Kath's request I have removed her quote from the post. If it was addressed, even in a negative way, it would stay. But it looks like it was an accidental double quote. Either way, no harm no foul.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

James, you have several replies, dont be shy. ;)--tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Post #77 by Robert was a multi-quote message and had quoted both Kathianne and a post by aboutime. Roberts reply to those quotes had nothing to do with Kath's quoted post. I have not touched any of Robert's post/property, but at Kath's request I have removed her quote from the post. If it was addressed, even in a negative way, it would stay. But it looks like it was an accidental double quote. Either way, no harm no foul.

I admit that I am jealous that some of you easily pull up quotes from many sources at times and when I want to do it, I am stiffed.

I don't recall trying to drag Kathianne into comments I made to AT. Any post of hers that was there was by accident or rather I am simply making mistakes. I thought she claimed my reply to AT was way off base. Now that you modified post 77, I won't be able to see what you are talking about.

[jimnyc]

I admit that I am jealous that some of you easily pull up quotes from many sources at times and when I want to do it, I am stiffed.

I don't recall trying to drag Kathianne into comments I made to AT. Any post of hers that was there was by accident or rather I am simply making mistakes. I thought she claimed my reply to AT was way off base. Now that you modified post 77, I won't be able to see what you are talking about.

It was no biggie, your original post had 2 quotes. Above AT's quote which is there now, it had an additional quote there by Kathianne. It's gone now.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by aboutime http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=602786#post602786)
James. All of that, and what I read in reference to that man in your avatar tells me. You are at the wrong Forum. You can share your idea's as much as you want. But the second you try to tell anyone else they are wrong for not feeling, or believing as you do. Your welcome here will be short-lived.



Didn't you just do that to James? Actually I know. It is precisely what you did to him.




(By Robert Whit)I don't believe that Jimnyc runs that sort of forum.

The right thing to do is explain your ideas and he explains his.

Depending on the parties goals, some will claim you won, others claim he will win.

<!-- edit note -->
Last edited by Robert A Whit; Today at 11:49 AM.


OK, that is how I intended #77 to look. If Jim cleaned it up, thank you Jim.

I can't tell now what Kathianne was on her high horse over but safe to say that if the post I put up had something about her, that was just a mistake on my part. <!-- / edit note -->

[Kathianne]

I admit that I am jealous that some of you easily pull up quotes from many sources at times and when I want to do it, I am stiffed.

I don't recall trying to drag Kathianne into comments I made to AT. Any post of hers that was there was by accident or rather I am simply making mistakes. I thought she claimed my reply to AT was way off base. Now that you modified post 77, I won't be able to see what you are talking about.

With the above being said, you're 'quoting' of my post was most likely a mistake. No problem. I thought you were trying to conflate my post and AT's. since you quoted both, but only responded to AT's, there was no reason for my post to be quoted. That is why I requested it be removed.

[Robert A Whit]

With the above being said, you're 'quoting' of my post was most likely a mistake. No problem. I thought you were trying to conflate my post and AT's. since you quoted both, but only responded to AT's, there was no reason for my post to be quoted. That is why I requested it be removed.

I can't recall you even being involved. I dunno what happened.

I want to be able to leave one quote and add my comment. But other times I would like to leave both the pair I just said plus one earlier.

Sooner or later I will get the hang of this forum and how to use the tools.

[Kathianne]

Using 'multi-quote':


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png




OK, that is how I intended #77 to look. If Jim cleaned it up, thank you Jim.

I can't tell now what Kathianne was on her high horse over but safe to say that if the post I put up had something about her, that was just a mistake on my part. <!-- / edit note -->

He did. He removed the 'quoted post' of mine that appeared and had zero to do with your reply. It was gratuitous for no reason. At's post and your reply was as should be.

I can't recall you even being involved. I dunno what happened.

I want to be able to leave one quote and add my comment. But other times I would like to leave both the pair I just said plus one earlier. There has to be 'reasons for the pair.'


Sooner or later I will get the hang of this forum and how to use the tools.

We all look forward to that day.

[Robert A Whit]

Using 'multi-quote':


He did. He removed the 'quoted post' of mine that appeared and had zero to do with your reply. It was gratuitous for no reason. At's post and your reply was as should be.
There has to be 'reasons for the pair.'

We all look forward to that day.

Ok, this is what I got using just "quote"

[James]

Collectivism IS the state, however --- that's what Soviet Russia found.

Anarchism means no government at all, but that can't work because it's like the Congo, everyone strong kills everyone weak, Hobbes and all that. Collectivism is simply a kind of government, but you say it isn't a government........but it is. We already saw all that going on for 77 years, and it didn't work. Bigtime.

You seem very confused. Let me make this very clear for you:
1. Anarchists are against coercion, thus we fully oppose the soviets and the forceful application of collectivism.
2. Collectivism has nothing to do with government, it's a business model.
3. I don't know about Congo, but the communist part of anarchist communism provides a stable society.

I hope this helps. ;)

[Robert A Whit]

Using 'multi-quote':


He did. He removed the 'quoted post' of mine that appeared and had zero to do with your reply. It was gratuitous for no reason. At's post and your reply was as should be.
There has to be 'reasons for the pair.'

We all look forward to that day.

This is what I got by hitting multi quote (nothing then happened, so I then hit quote)

[James]

Anyone who claims to Be an Anarchist, or one who follows the Anarchy route in life. Is, in my opinion. Worthless to any cause if they are convinced destroying, or the destruction of others property, or their lives will win them recognition.
In other words. Anarchists who come here, making phony excuses...as we have seen. Do not deserve to be here.

Yes, I suppose we all have our excuses for opposing freedom. In any case, anarchist communism destroy's nothing that doesn't inhibit the rights of the individual.

You're free to boast your desire to chase me off the forum if you choose to, but I'll be staying, whiter I "deserve" it, or not.
:cow:

[mundame]

You seem very confused. Let me make this very clear for you:
1. Anarchists are against coercion, thus we fully oppose the soviets and the forceful application of collectivism.
2. Collectivism has nothing to do with government, it's a business model.
3. I don't know about Congo, but the communist part of anarchist communism provides a stable society.

I hope this helps. ;)


It is you who are confused, not me: I am not the one who favors such a silly system as anarchism, in which continual crime would destroy society completely for lack of any government of any sort.

The best analysis I ever read about anarchism is that it is a political system fervently believed in by very young men who hate their fathers. Their fathers disciplined them and didn't give them everything they wanted and gave them orders, so they became very anti-authoritarian and generalized their father-hate to all of society: they didn't want ANYONE to have any authority over anyone else. They conflated police and mayors and governors and professors and every authority figure with their hated father.

Normally anarchists grow out of it at 30 or when they first get mugged, whichever comes first. When they are crime victims they suddenly realize that with no government there is no police and no one to call for help against men who would rob and kill them at will.

But in the meantime anarchists throw a lot of bombs, violently demonstrate at G-7 meetings, start dirty and illegal Occupy encampments and generally behave in a way that no one sane would want to live or allow.

It has always struck me with wonderment that anarchists throw so many bombs themselves and yet still believe that people can live peacefully together with no laws or enforcement. They are the very criminals government is needed to protect people against.

[James]

It is you who are confused, not me: I am not the one who favors such a silly system as anarchism, in which continual crime would destroy society completely for lack of any government of any sort.

I feel the same way about capitalism.


The best analysis I ever read about anarchism is that it is a political system fervently believed in by very young men who hate their fathers. Their fathers disciplined them and didn't give them everything they wanted and gave them orders, so they became very anti-authoritarian and generalized their father-hate to all of society: they didn't want ANYONE to have any authority over anyone else. They conflated police and mayors and governors and professors and every authority figure with their hated father.

What a silly ad hom. If you had anything to add to this conversation, or knew anarcho-communist history, you wouldn't resort to such tactics. ;)


Normally anarchists grow out of it at 30 or when they first get mugged, whichever comes first. When they are crime victims they suddenly realize that with no government there is no police and no one to call for help against men who would rob and kill them at will.

Once again, I don't advocate for a society without laws, organization, and enforcement of those laws. I clearly stated that I don't believe anarchism can exist independently - I'm an anarcho-communist, not an anarchist.


But in the meantime anarchists throw a lot of bombs, violently demonstrate at G-7 meetings, start dirty and illegal Occupy encampments and generally behave in a way that no one sane would want to live or allow.

It has always struck me with wonderment that anarchists throw so many bombs themselves and yet still believe that people can live peacefully together with no laws or enforcement. They are the very criminals government is needed to protect people against.

Those anarchists are simply children who are angry at the government and don't have a solid belief system. I'm not one of those anarchists.

[fj1200]

It is you who are confused, not me: I am not the one who favors such a silly system as anarchism, in which continual crime would destroy society completely for lack of any government of any sort.


I feel the same way about capitalism.

What continual crime is committed in capitalism?

[fj1200]

Agna's mentor?

Unlikely, I think Agna, and even BlackandRed, is far above our new friend.

[mundame]

What a silly ad hom. If you had anything to add to this conversation, or knew anarcho-communist history, you wouldn't resort to such tactics. ;)



Suggestion: Don't put smilies at the end of insults. It doesn't fool anyone.

I do know anarchist history very well: it's a story of extreme violence and confusion and failure. Everyone knows the history of communism: worldwide failure and grotesque mass murder and poverty on an amazing scale, one of the single saddest ideas ever worked out on the canvas of history.

So here we have two systems that have demonstrated nothing but murder and poverty and destitution for everyone, everyone, who has tried either. Anarchy didn't amount to anything beyond single terrorists bombing and shooting (they couldn't organize and still can't because it's incompatible with their anti-authoritarianism) but communism, which shows a great capacity for oppressing millions into grinding poverty for decades, is unlikely to be magically improved by mixing it with an even worse and more criminal terrorist system.

Basically, you are advocating crime and mass murder. I'm not going to pretend to admire that sort of thing. No doubt we'll get to widespread crime and mass murder with the next revolution and Terror, as the French did, but I don't see the point in pretending it's a political system. Anarchic terror is exactly what we try to AVOID by having government.

Okay, you don't think I have anything to add to this conversation, you say. Fine, I'll stay out of it; it's just silly anyway to get involved with these type of hard leftists on the Internet. So go ahead and promote your evil system to the others who are willing to talk to Jafar the Muslim; maybe they'll talk with you, too. I am not too interested in talking with actual enemies of my country. I don't see the point in that. Enemies aren't for talking to; they aren't going to be persuaded not to be enemies and be on our side, and talking never got rid of anyone, so why bother.

[Kathianne]

I feel the same way about capitalism.



What a silly ad hom. If you had anything to add to this conversation, or knew anarcho-communist history, you wouldn't resort to such tactics. ;)



Once again, I don't advocate for a society without laws, organization, and enforcement of those laws. I clearly stated that I don't believe anarchism can exist independently - I'm an anarcho-communist, not an anarchist.



Those anarchists are simply children who are angry at the government and don't have a solid belief system. I'm not one of those anarchists.

Look, the label you give yourself and the movement of such gives itself has the emphasis on 'anarchy.' There are no laws or organizations of durability, without government. The whole idea of enforcement of anything, other than the most brutish and brightest, is a joke.

While many of us will no doubt find your posts to be intellectually interesting, you are still going to have to deal with what you see as a 'better way.' It's a tough road, as many have already posted, the anarchist philosophy, as well as 'communes' have both been repeat failures.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Once again, I don't advocate for a society without laws, organization, and enforcement of those laws. I clearly stated that I don't believe anarchism can exist independently - I'm an anarcho-communist, not an anarchist.

So you advocate using anarchy merely to reach your goal of communism! Well, not very original as its been done before. Then after the communists took power millions were murdered. Check out the mass murders(tens of millions) from Stalin and Mao for great examples of this better system you think can be created! I get this feeling that you haven't really thought this out well and have no true concept of the reality of that which you advocate. -Tyr



Those anarchists are simply children who are angry at the government and don't have a solid belief system. I'm not one of those anarchists.

Yes, we see. You advocate using anarchy as a tool to achieve a greater goal. That of a communist state! Here is a big hint, when history shows failure and the murder of tens of millions its not a good ideal! Now tell us how your presentation doesn't advocate the murder of all those people and the enslavement of millions more and if you do I will explain how it is NOT communism. However , I seriously doubt I'll have to explain at all. -Tyr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody has ever figured out how to have a one world government or rule without using extreme brute force and murder. Without having an all powerful central command and control. All attempts have failed long before achieving
world domination. Your combination as you describe it does not overcome that reality..-Tyr

[aboutime]

Look, the label you give yourself and the movement of such gives itself has the emphasis on 'anarchy.' There are no laws or organizations of durability, without government. The whole idea of enforcement of anything, other than the most brutish and brightest, is a joke.

While many of us will no doubt find your posts to be intellectually interesting, you are still going to have to deal with what you see as a 'better way.' It's a tough road, as many have already posted, the anarchist philosophy, as well as 'communes' have both been repeat failures.


Kathianne. Anarchists who wish to destroy from within always seem to deny being what they actually are. It's a technique used by both home-grown, and foreign enemies. Play the game. Get along. Become part of the family. Then....SURPRISE!

[Nukeman]

Anyone who claims to Be an Anarchist, or one who follows the Anarchy route in life. Is, in my opinion. Worthless to any cause if they are convinced destroying, or the destruction of others property, or their lives will win them recognition.
In other words. Anarchists who come here, making phony excuses...as we have seen. Do not deserve to be here.OK, I know this may be unpopular with some of the newer members here and I say this with "all do respect" but who the hell are you to tell other members they don't belong somewhere, just because they have differing opinions (albiet a little nuts IMHO)..

This board is a VERY free board. that means it is a board where others are FREE to have a differing opinion than you and are free to express themselves as they see fit, if YOU find that offensive than maybe you should think about leaving... If you are not for FREEDOM to discuss and have differing opinion than YOU do NOT deserve to be here...

Sorry for the rant but I have seen a number of posters of late nit-pick the hell out of other posters. You do not have to belittle everything someone says to make your point, in fact the more some of you do this the less other participate. Now back to the thread.... Ohh and be a little more tolerant otherwise it makes you look like a pompus ass!!!!!!!:poke:

[mundame]

I guess what we need, nukeman, is yet MORE freedom. We need at least one Satanist here, promoting his views, right? And a couple lesbian Wicca witches. I read tarots pretty well; I might talk with them some.

How about some Heaven's Gate folks, since we're getting another comet in 2013? The last lot all killed themselves to catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet, I'm not quite sure how their transport worked, but no doubt it was all a great idea that needs discussion here.

Let's see.....we need some Riellians for the alien contact thing, and we need some Scientologists to give us some Hollywood glitz, we have a Mormon, we can check that off, and how about a Jehovah's Witness to remind us not to say Happy New Year or mention any other holidays? Let's see, some Moonies so we can marry them in mass ceremonies, and some Hari Krishnas for the elephants. Their elephants are neat and new people get to scrub them down.


Ahhh, freedom. Freedom to discuss TOTALLY IDIOTIC IDEAS, that's what we need more of.

[James]

Yes, we see. You advocate using anarchy as a tool to achieve a greater goal. That of a communist state! Here is a big hint, when history shows failure and the murder of tens of millions its not a good ideal! Now tell us how your presentation doesn't advocate the murder of all those people and the enslavement of millions more and if you do I will explain how it is NOT communism. However , I seriously doubt I'll have to explain at all. -Tyr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody has ever figured out how to have a one world government or rule without using extreme brute force and murder. Without having an all powerful central command and control. All attempts have failed long before achieving
world domination. Your combination as you describe it does not overcome that reality..-Tyr

Holy crap! :eek: I thought you were a reasonable, literate poster, but I guess I was wrong.

Please look back on my original post about AC:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37992-Remember-that-the-Bush-tax-cuts-are-expiring-because-Democrats-wanted-it-that-way&p=602784#post602784

I clearly state that I'm anti-statist and that AC is the merging of Anarchism and Communism.

[mundame]

AC is the merging of Anarchism and Communism.


Great idea, mix anarchy and communism! That's like mixing shit and Shinola, right? And then you've got a wonderful new compound that's good for..........


Good for................


I might have to think for awhile about what either of those compounds is good for.

[James]

Look, the label you give yourself and the movement of such gives itself has the emphasis on 'anarchy.' There are no laws or organizations of durability, without government. The whole idea of enforcement of anything, other than the most brutish and brightest, is a joke.

While many of us will no doubt find your posts to be intellectually interesting, you are still going to have to deal with what you see as a 'better way.' It's a tough road, as many have already posted, the anarchist philosophy, as well as 'communes' have both been repeat failures.

First and foremost, I'd like to ask you a simple question. How does a commune function without the aid of government? There's no doubt that it does, see.

What I see is a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchist communism, which allows you to post what you do. These may help:
http://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/carlo-cafiero-anarchy-communism/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/kropotkin/ancom/

As for these other posters, they were chased off by those who dislike intellectual discourse, no? The forum owner's a smart guy - I can assume he'll have no issue with his seasoned vets loosing a debate or two. :laugh:

[James]

Great idea, mix anarchy and communism! That's like mixing shit and Shinola, right? And then you've got a wonderful new compound that's good for..........


Good for................


I might have to think for awhile about what either of those compounds is good for.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your love for empty rhetoric. May I suggest a debate with a capitalist? ;)

[fj1200]

Please look back on my original post about AC:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37992-Remember-that-the-Bush-tax-cuts-are-expiring-because-Democrats-wanted-it-that-way&p=602784#post602784


What I see is a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchist communism, which allows you to post what you do. These may help:
http://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/carlo-cafiero-anarchy-communism/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/kropotkin/ancom/

For better results you might could start a thread specifically about, or add on to another, AC rather than posting one-liners in a thread about something else completely. It will allow you to go into more detail about what you believe.

[Little-Acorn]

If I may interrupt this relevant discussion of what whose post said, whether it was meant to say that, whether somebody else interpreted it correctly or incorrectly, the corrections to the interpretation that someoby else had, the corrections to the corrections to the interpretations, and other such vital information....

Back to the subject:
Keep in mind that the only reason there's an expiration date on those tax cuts at all, is because various Democrats refused to vote for it unless he put in an expiration date, ten years after he passed them. Originally, George Bush designed them to be permanent cuts, that would not expire.

Republicans have since successfully enacted delays in the expiration but have been unable to eliminate it, due to Democrat insistence that they expire.

Now we are coming up on that (delayed) expiration date, on Jan. 1, 2013. Republicans have again been fighting to get rid of the expiration, but Democrats have been insisting that the expiration take place. Most recently, the Democrat have been saying that they must expire for higher incomes only, while Republicans have stuck to their insistence that nothing expire - that the tax cuts remain permanent.

In a crowning absurdity, Democrat have now announced that it's Republicans' fault that the tax cuts will expire! And this after more than ten years of Republicans trying to get them to get rid of the expiration date and make the cuts permanent, while Democrats, after putting the expiration date in in the first place, have steadfastly fought to make sure the DID expire.

You voted for it, Demmies. Now you can lie in it. And they do, they do.

[James]

For better results you might could start a thread specifically about, or add on to another, AC rather than posting one-liners in a thread about something else completely. It will allow you to go into more detail about what you believe.

Yes, I suppose you're correct. Though, onlookers may want to be informed that you've cut off the bulk of those two posts and that the small number of "one liners" I've posted have been warranted.

If anyone wants to post a thread attacking my beliefs, they're more than welcome to. For now, however, I'll stop derailing what was once a decent thread. ;)

[fj1200]

Yes, I suppose you're correct. Though, onlookers may want to be informed that you've cut off the bulk of those two posts and that the small number of "one liners" I've posted have been warranted.

If anyone wants to post a thread attacking my beliefs, they're more than welcome to. For now, however, I'll stop derailing what was once a decent thread. ;)

Shall I tell you where it got derailed? :poke: Besides, I'm sure those onlookers know what they're missing.

Did you not like this thread?

Anarchist Communism (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?25879-Anarchist-Communism)

[Robert A Whit]

It is you who are confused, not me: I am not the one who favors such a silly system as anarchism, in which continual crime would destroy society completely for lack of any government of any sort.

The best analysis I ever read about anarchism is that it is a political system fervently believed in by very young men who hate their fathers. Their fathers disciplined them and didn't give them everything they wanted and gave them orders, so they became very anti-authoritarian and generalized their father-hate to all of society: they didn't want ANYONE to have any authority over anyone else. They conflated police and mayors and governors and professors and every authority figure with their hated father.

Normally anarchists grow out of it at 30 or when they first get mugged, whichever comes first. When they are crime victims they suddenly realize that with no government there is no police and no one to call for help against men who would rob and kill them at will.

But in the meantime anarchists throw a lot of bombs, violently demonstrate at G-7 meetings, start dirty and illegal Occupy encampments and generally behave in a way that no one sane would want to live or allow.

It has always struck me with wonderment that anarchists throw so many bombs themselves and yet still believe that people can live peacefully together with no laws or enforcement. They are the very criminals government is needed to protect people against.

The only case you made is that your neighbors are evil sons of $itches who you want to be able to call the cops on thinking that will stop crime.

Has it worked?

You are not describing anarchists, you are describing thugs. Notice that even with government, they still create enormous problems.

Again, your form of government prevented nothing.

The USA prisons are full to the point that CA has had to change laws to get early release. Clearly your system still is not working very well.

[Robert A Whit]

Suggestion: Don't put smilies at the end of insults. It doesn't fool anyone.

I do know anarchist history very well: it's a story of extreme violence and confusion and failure. Everyone knows the history of communism: worldwide failure and grotesque mass murder and poverty on an amazing scale, one of the single saddest ideas ever worked out on the canvas of history.

So here we have two systems that have demonstrated nothing but murder and poverty and destitution for everyone, everyone, who has tried either. Anarchy didn't amount to anything beyond single terrorists bombing and shooting (they couldn't organize and still can't because it's incompatible with their anti-authoritarianism) but communism, which shows a great capacity for oppressing millions into grinding poverty for decades, is unlikely to be magically improved by mixing it with an even worse and more criminal terrorist system.

Basically, you are advocating crime and mass murder. I'm not going to pretend to admire that sort of thing. No doubt we'll get to widespread crime and mass murder with the next revolution and Terror, as the French did, but I don't see the point in pretending it's a political system. Anarchic terror is exactly what we try to AVOID by having government.

Okay, you don't think I have anything to add to this conversation, you say. Fine, I'll stay out of it; it's just silly anyway to get involved with these type of hard leftists on the Internet. So go ahead and promote your evil system to the others who are willing to talk to Jafar the Muslim; maybe they'll talk with you, too. I am not too interested in talking with actual enemies of my country. I don't see the point in that. Enemies aren't for talking to; they aren't going to be persuaded not to be enemies and be on our side, and talking never got rid of anyone, so why bother.

This is what your system accomplished.
630,000 dead in the USA Civil war or so called civil war.
Government killed millions in China.
Government killed hundreds of thousands using nuclear bombs.

Tell me this. Do you think the Anarchists could have amassed major navies or been able to invent nuclear weapons?

I do not consider anarchists to the criminals. There would be plenty of evidence were that the case.

It is my opinion you are trying to link criminals to a group of people who believe in true self government.

[Robert A Whit]

I guess what we need, nukeman, is yet MORE freedom. We need at least one Satanist here, promoting his views, right? And a couple lesbian Wicca witches. I read tarots pretty well; I might talk with them some.

How about some Heaven's Gate folks, since we're getting another comet in 2013? The last lot all killed themselves to catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp comet, I'm not quite sure how their transport worked, but no doubt it was all a great idea that needs discussion here.

Let's see.....we need some Riellians for the alien contact thing, and we need some Scientologists to give us some Hollywood glitz, we have a Mormon, we can check that off, and how about a Jehovah's Witness to remind us not to say Happy New Year or mention any other holidays? Let's see, some Moonies so we can marry them in mass ceremonies, and some Hari Krishnas for the elephants. Their elephants are neat and new people get to scrub them down.


Ahhh, freedom. Freedom to discuss TOTALLY IDIOTIC IDEAS, that's what we need more of.


Interesting the way you skipped over so many religions and other political beliefs.

Very interesting indeed.

What it looks like is you see some people as oddballs of some sort.

Sort of smug eh?

[mundame]

I take it from your several posts that you are yourself an anarchist, Robert? Do you view yourself as also a communist, or just an anarchist?

Is this a Mormon thing or is it a belief system you have developed by yourself?

[aboutime]

If I may interrupt this relevant discussion of what whose post said, whether it was meant to say that, whether somebody else interpreted it correctly or incorrectly, the corrections to the interpretation that someoby else had, the corrections to the corrections to the interpretations, and other such vital information....

Back to the subject:
Keep in mind that the only reason there's an expiration date on those tax cuts at all, is because various Democrats refused to vote for it unless he put in an expiration date, ten years after he passed them. Originally, George Bush designed them to be permanent cuts, that would not expire.

Republicans have since successfully enacted delays in the expiration but have been unable to eliminate it, due to Democrat insistence that they expire.

Now we are coming up on that (delayed) expiration date, on Jan. 1, 2013. Republicans have again been fighting to get rid of the expiration, but Democrats have been insisting that the expiration take place. Most recently, the Democrat have been saying that they must expire for higher incomes only, while Republicans have stuck to their insistence that nothing expire - that the tax cuts remain permanent.

In a crowning absurdity, Democrat have now announced that it's Republicans' fault that the tax cuts will expire! And this after more than ten years of Republicans trying to get them to get rid of the expiration date and make the cuts permanent, while Democrats, after putting the expiration date in in the first place, have steadfastly fought to make sure the DID expire.

You voted for it, Demmies. Now you can lie in it. And they do, they do.


BRAVO! :clap::clap: