The 2008 SOP Democrat stump speech

[The_Professor]

We should tax Dick Cheney,  much more than we do currently.

Cheney probably paid more in taxes last year than you've ever made in your life.

As long as you are living in a dream world, using the IRS to go after your political enemies, I would love to see a 75% marginal rate slapped onto hypocrites like Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Streisand and Micheal Moore. And watch them scream about how unfair it is. I would love it.

Buy, THAT would be something to see!

[The_Professor]

The one thing that can be said of overpaid actors and sports figures is that their salaries come from VOLUNTARY payments by consumers. Dick Cheney made his bazillions as a result of his influence peddling.

There's no difference.  Tiger, ARod and Tom Cruise made their "bazillians" by peddling their talents, be it hitting a ball with a club or playacting.  And we won't even touch on their endorsements.  Your opinion of what Cheney does or doesn't peddle is noted, the point being no one was forcing the $$ on anyone or TAKING money from someone else to give them.  They are all voluntary payments, be it from fans or salary

So again, where's the equivalent venting of outrage??

Why wouldn't these people pay the higher rate as well? They make the income then they pay the higher rate (actually A-Rod and Tiger made a hell of a lot more than Cheney and should pay more in taxes). I have no clue what Tom Cruise makes. But certainly if he makes enough to fit into the top percentiles, then he should pay more in taxes.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

And if that is such a destructive concept, why do Scandinavian nations do so well?

Denmark:

Infant Mortality Rate 4.51 per 1,000
Life Expectancy 77.79 years
Unemployment 2.8%
Welfare State: 29.2% of GDP
Tax Burden: 47.7% of GDP
Highest Marginal Tax Rate: 63%
Inflation: 1.7%
GDP Growth: 3.5%
Gini-Coefficient: 24.7 (Best in the world)
Balance of Payments: $4.9 Billion (positive = surplus)

The United States:

Infant Mortality Rate: 6.4 deaths per 1,000
Life Expectancy: 78 Years
Unemployment Rate: 4.5%
Inflation: 2.5%
Tax Burden: 29% of GDP
Highest Marginal Tax Rate: 35%
Welfare State: 14.8% of GDP
GDP Growth 3.2%
Gini-Coefficient: 40.8 (Right behind Ghana and Turkmenistan)
Balance of Payments: -$811 Billion

Why is Denmark so much better at this than we are?

Of course, THIS is why so many people want to move to those countries and not the U.S.

[_JS]

Actually, quite a few people do move to Scandinavia and they take in quite a few refugees. As a percentage of total population they take in as many as we do.

I ask again, why can they do it and we cannot?

And if their welfare policies and taxing the wealthy is so horrible and destructive, then why is Denmark's economy doing so well? Why are Denmark, Sweden, and Norway able to take care of their people whereas we cannot?

Are they just that much more intelligent than us?

[Michael Tee]

I notice that in any rational discussion involving the relative merits of Amerikkkan capitalism versus European style socialism, sirs ultimately by-passes the facts and figures and goes for the "killer argument" [in his mind] that the U.S. is attracting so many more people to its shores than Denmark et al. are to theirs.

I think it's worth pointing out to sirs and to anyone else attracted by such a moronic argument that, unlike Denmark, the U.S.A. shares a long and permeable border with Mexico, which in turn shares a border with Guatemala, which in turn shares a border with El Salvador and Honduras, etc.   Basically, the U.S. is bordered by and accessible to large populations of extremely impoverished Latins, mainly Mexicans, who have a little less problem getting to the U.S. border than getting to Denmark.  It's quite likely also that more of them speak English than Danish. 

In contrast to the U.S.A., Denmark shares a land border with . . . GERMANY, not exactly impoverished or desperate to get out of the "hell-hole" of a Third World country.  The only other country close enough to flood Denmark with refugees (but - - inexplicably - - doesn't) is Sweden.

I think sirs' argument has great appeal - - but only to someone who is totally ignorant of geography.

[sirs]

Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves.  This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S.  The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC.  Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily?  If they were to ask of course.  You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?

But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others.  And that's supposed to be wrong.  On what planet?

[Xavier_Onassis]

However, if we tax them too heavily, what would stop them from simply locking up and going overseas, taking their businesses (and jobs) with them?
==================================
I am all for Dick asshole Cheney locking up and going abroad.
I wonder how many jobs would accompany him?

Perhaps he could monger a war between, say, Togo and Tonga, Malaysia and the Maldives. At least we'd be rid of him.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves.  >>


Geeze, I didn't realize.  My apologies for my ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.  Just where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Federal government obliged to defend, say, Sweden?  or Denmark? or Viet Nam?  or Iraq? 

<<This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S.  The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, . . . >>

Enforcing international will?  What happened, did George Will go international?  Seriously, I'm pleased to see that some logic must be seeping into your head from somewhere, against all your efforts to ward it off, because you seem to have given up the absurd pretence that the U.S. was somehow interested in enforcing international law.  So now it's "international will" is it?  Like the widely expressed international desire for the U.S. to invade Iraq and dictate not only its basic form of government but that it pass a hydrocarbons law friendly to foreign investment in the industry?

<< . . . thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........>>

Threats related largely to your continuing interference in and aggression against the persons making the threats.  Defending yourselves against self-created enemies, which Denmark, Sweden et al. haven't been so foolish as to create in the first place.

<<Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily?  If they were to ask of course.  You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?>>

I think the Russians could beat the Swedes.  It would be tougher for China.  And this is the business of the U.S.A. because . . . ?  And Amerikkka devotes what part of its military budget to defending Sweden?  Sweden can take care of itself.  It prefers diplomatic means.  They must work because Russia has never invaded it.  (In fact, Sweden invaded Russia but that was in centuries past and the Russians seem to have gotten over it.)  Sweden does not need to defend itself because it does not threaten other countries, invade them, change their regimes, blockade them, starve them etc.  Whaddaya know?  A peaceful, rational, non-violent way of dealing with other nations and resolving your differences with them.  Maybe Amerikkka should try it.  Might save them a few bucks in military hardware somewhere down the line.  Then maybe they could afford to adopt some of the advanced social welfare methods of Scandinavia and finally become as civilized as they are.

Oh, and I meant to ask you - - do you think it's time for the Swedes and Danes to put up a coastal fence to keep out seaborne Mexicans and Cubans?

[Amianthus]

My apologies for my ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.  Just where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Federal government obliged to defend, say, Sweden?  or Denmark? or Viet Nam?  or Iraq? 

That's ok, you don't live here, so we forgive your lapse.

From Article VI:

all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

We have treaties with those countries that obligate us to defend them. This clause incorporates that defense into the Constitution.

[_JS]

Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves.  This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S.  The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC.  Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily?  If they were to ask of course.  You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?

But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others.  And that's supposed to be wrong.  On what planet?

LOL

Seriously?

That is your argument?

You are saying that we cannot have a working society like that of Denmark and Sweden because we had to fight wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? We had to fuck (and I do not use that word lightly) countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, South Africa, and many, many more? We had to?

Hundreds of thousands of people murdered, brutally tortured (that's just by Suharto in Indonesia alone!) and we had to?

That's why Scandinavians can take care of their people + refugees and asylum seekers, but we can't?

Honestly Sirs, if that is the real reason then it is a far, FAR, greater crime perpetrated on the people of this country and the world as a whole than simply being less competent in running a country than the Danes or the Swedes. Being incompetent is one matter, spending money that could actually make every American's life better and prevent desperate poverty on fucking countries for the last fifty years is an outright crime against history.

To think that you are using it as a valid excuse is horrifying. We had top support some of the worst police states that have ever scarred the face of the Earth? Not just support them, mind you, install the sons of bitches! Many times with no communist threat and removing democratically elected officials!

And y'all use it as an excuse?

Russia and China? What sovereign country did they invade last?

[sirs]

Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves.  This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S.  The reason is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC.  Hypothetically, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily?  If they were to ask of course.  You think Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?

But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others.  And that's supposed to be wrong.  On what planet?

Seriously?  That is your argument?

One of many....Seriously

You are saying that we cannot have a working society like that of Denmark and Sweden because we had to fight wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? We had to fuck (and I do not use that word lightly) countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, South Africa, and many, many more? We had to?

Not quite, but excellent distortion of my point.   

[The_Professor]

According to that theory, all tax evasion is detected and evidence of it found by authorities.  There is no tax evasion that occurs without being found out.  With all due respect, that is nonsense.

Unless you have some type of proof that Cheney evaded taxes, you are lying. With all respect.

You don't know that, either.  You've never even seen Denise Rich's boobs.

Yes I have. They are probably behind Marc Rich's pardon.

So if it's no big deal, how come you avoided telling us how much tax Cheney "probably" avoided paying?

It's no doubt less than John Kerry and his wife "probably" avoided.

You don't need a flat tax, you just need a tax that'll make the rich pay more;

How much should Cheney pay? He's already paying close to 40%.

and you'd never put accountants and tax attorneys out of business, even with a flat tax on income

There would be no use for their services because you could fill out your own taxes on an index card.

"That's OK, I stand by the idea that he probably avoided and/or evaded more tax than YOU ever made in YOUR life and that he never gave a nickel in charity that didn't earn him a further tax break."  

Cheney already paid his fair share in taxes.

This clown doesn't even want to give his own daughter the same civil rights that every other American enjoys, and he's suddenly a great philanthropist?  What's his favourite charity, Fags Fry in Hell?

Cheney supports civil unions.

Gee, THAT's my wife! How did you get that picture? I tohguht I had it safely locked away....

[The_Professor]

I notice that in any rational discussion involving the relative merits of Amerikkkan capitalism versus European style socialism, sirs ultimately by-passes the facts and figures and goes for the "killer argument" [in his mind] that the U.S. is attracting so many more people to its shores than Denmark et al. are to theirs.

I think it's worth pointing out to sirs and to anyone else attracted by such a moronic argument that, unlike Denmark, the U.S.A. shares a long and permeable border with Mexico, which in turn shares a border with Guatemala, which in turn shares a border with El Salvador and Honduras, etc.   Basically, the U.S. is bordered by and accessible to large populations of extremely impoverished Latins, mainly Mexicans, who have a little less problem getting to the U.S. border than getting to Denmark.  It's quite likely also that more of them speak English than Danish. 

In contrast to the U.S.A., Denmark shares a land border with . . . GERMANY, not exactly impoverished or desperate to get out of the "hell-hole" of a Third World country.  The only other country close enough to flood Denmark with refugees (but - - inexplicably - - doesn't) is Sweden.

I think sirs' argument has great appeal - - but only to someone who is totally ignorant of geography.

Actually, MT, this is a good argument. Is there a way to tell if you can somehow eliminate the phyiscla geography issue?

[The_Professor]

<<Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves.  >>


Geeze, I didn't realize.  My apologies for my ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.  Just where in the U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Federal government obliged to defend, say, Sweden?  or Denmark? or Viet Nam?  or Iraq? 

<<This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S.  The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, . . . >>

Enforcing international will?  What happened, did George Will go international?  Seriously, I'm pleased to see that some logic must be seeping into your head from somewhere, against all your efforts to ward it off, because you seem to have given up the absurd pretence that the U.S. was somehow interested in enforcing international law.  So now it's "international will" is it?  Like the widely expressed international desire for the U.S. to invade Iraq and dictate not only its basic form of government but that it pass a hydrocarbons law friendly to foreign investment in the industry?

<< . . . thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........>>

Threats related largely to your continuing interference in and aggression against the persons making the threats.  Defending yourselves against self-created enemies, which Denmark, Sweden et al. haven't been so foolish as to create in the first place.

<<Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily?  If they were to ask of course.  You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?>>

I think the Russians could beat the Swedes.  It would be tougher for China.  And this is the business of the U.S.A. because . . . ?  And Amerikkka devotes what part of its military budget to defending Sweden?  Sweden can take care of itself.  It prefers diplomatic means.  They must work because Russia has never invaded it.  (In fact, Sweden invaded Russia but that was in centuries past and the Russians seem to have gotten over it.)  Sweden does not need to defend itself because it does not threaten other countries, invade them, change their regimes, blockade them, starve them etc.  Whaddaya know?  A peaceful, rational, non-violent way of dealing with other nations and resolving your differences with them.  Maybe Amerikkka should try it.  Might save them a few bucks in military hardware somewhere down the line.  Then maybe they could afford to adopt some of the advanced social welfare methods of Scandinavia and finally become as civilized as they are.

Oh, and I meant to ask you - - do you think it's time for the Swedes and Danes to put up a coastal fence to keep out seaborne Mexicans and Cubans?

MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reason SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.

Also, it is true in my mid that we do need to pursue more diplomatic means than perhaps we have lately. That being the case, sometimes you simply have to SQUASH someone if diplomacy fails. If that event transpires, you must have the RAW POWER to do it. Not before it inecessary, but when it is, you must be willing to swing that stick HARD.

[The_Professor]

Actually ignorance is demonstrated by those who don't wish to acknowledge both the Constitutional mandates the Fed is under, as well as the strange position that postWWII has facilitated, that of the U.S. somehow being requested to be in so many places, militarily, to help secure & defend countries & locations, where those countries have no need to develop their own military, or substantive means of defending themselves.  This addresses Js' point as well, as to why these other countries can be doing so well, compared to the U.S.  The reason is is these other countries and geographic locations have no problem accepting the U.S. as the principle means of enforcing international will, thus the bulk of their $$$ can go into more social programs, while a large bulk of ours goes into our ability to defend ourselves from all forms of threats.........making it that much more unlikely to be knocked off the pedastool as BMOC.  Hypotheticall, if some country attacks Sweden, who's likely to come to their aide militarily?  If they were to ask of course.  You thnik Sweden or Denmark could mount any significant defense from let's say....China or Russia?

But instead, we have the left crying how it's so unfair for some to have more than others.  And that's supposed to be wrong.  On what planet?

LOL

Seriously?

That is your argument?

You are saying that we cannot have a working society like that of Denmark and Sweden because we had to fight wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq? We had to fuck (and I do not use that word lightly) countries like Iran, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, South Africa, and many, many more? We had to?

Hundreds of thousands of people murdered, brutally tortured (that's just by Suharto in Indonesia alone!) and we had to?

That's why Scandinavians can take care of their people + refugees and asylum seekers, but we can't?

Honestly Sirs, if that is the real reason then it is a far, FAR, greater crime perpetrated on the people of this country and the world as a whole than simply being less competent in running a country than the Danes or the Swedes. Being incompetent is one matter, spending money that could actually make every American's life better and prevent desperate poverty on fucking countries for the last fifty years is an outright crime against history.

To think that you are using it as a valid excuse is horrifying. We had top support some of the worst police states that have ever scarred the face of the Earth? Not just support them, mind you, install the sons of bitches! Many times with no communist threat and removing democratically elected officials!

And y'all use it as an excuse?

Russia and China? What sovereign country did they invade last?

I seme to hear this Euro-centric version over and over again and I would reiterate that people in general would still rather be HERE than THERE. I am not sure how to prove this statement without research which I do not have time for right now. If people like the Europeans' way of doing things to avidly, then simply pack up and go there. Contribute to the Great Society over there.

[Amianthus]

MT, be honest here, probably, and I do say probably, the major reaosn SWeden doesn't get invaded is that it has nothing, nada, zippo, anyone would what. It is largely devoid of natural resources, etc.

Sweden has a large ore exporting industry, including precious metals and uranium.