Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby Chuck Messer » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:10 am

I'm not out to put anybody in concentration camps. I've seen what the worst of these people can do. And I do mean worst. I tend to see the political scene in the US as an eco-system, which works best when its elements, liberal and conservative, are in balance. In my opinion, the scene is way out of balance.

I'd like to think the fringe will hoist itself by its own petard, but that doesn't always happen. And people like me are the ones who are the objects of their hatred.

It's hard not to hate back.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby Chuck Messer » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:11 am

I don't think you've pigeon-holed me yet, Mike.
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:21 am

Messer, I like you. Mike is cynical, you know how they are.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby cynic » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:35 pm

:lol:
thanks frank, given the context of the discussion that's pretty funny,
wrong, but funny
follow your bliss,mike

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby cynic » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:18 am

Steve,
Barber wrote: political positions which would have been unacceptable twenty, thirty years ago are now being redefined as mainstream .
i mostly agree, what is most objectionable is that the vociferous loons on both fringes are held up as the voice of the mainstream, -by the opposing party-.
You know...you're either a bleeding heart radical liberal commie chump...or a greedy xenophobic war & fear-mongering corporate goon.
If you vote independant, you're just a loon wasting a vote, and Everybody hates you (That's where i get stuck... if i'm lucky. I'm usually just cursed at as a dem chump or a rep goon).

but rather than a mere 30yr., think joe mccarthy, Weather underground and george wallace.
lbj was a trip, and everyone found something to hate about that guy. Unfortunately, obama is getting some of the same treatment.
Barber wrote: Money where the mouth is, guys: you want smaller government and lower taxes, reduce the amount you're getting from the Feds above and beyond your own taxation. Simple.
TANGENT ALERT:
i think some of this has been addressed by others on the pav. or here, but if not, here goes.
the disparity lies partly in the interstate highways (and bridges(some to nowhere)), infrastructure, but mainly farm, energy and military subsidies (and whatever other pork has been cast on the water).

good luck sorting all this cost/benefit out, aside from basicaly restructuring a large portion of the fabric of the nation, you may actually be taking money from more dems than reps, if you do it on a "by state" basis.

the #1 fed crumb snatcher? new mexico, solid dem
#2...................? alaska, solid rep, booooooooo! let'em secede!
#3...................? west virginia, solid dem, aaah, screw 'em anyway.
of the remaining 15 top leeches, 5 are a competative party split, 3 lean dem, and another 4 are solid dem.
Secession may be a more likely approach.

and again, what of the social contract?

who is paying now ? (i won't marry these OECD stats., but just for now...) CORPORATIONS ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom ... ountry.svg
yer not gonna like this either
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometax ... ysmost.htm
"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent."

unless of course you insist that only reps & teabaggers and cash based criminals cheat on taxes?

"Money where the mouth is, guys" ???
no steve, military AND entitlements mean more taxes for all, even if we phase out military...i wish us luck with that.
yeah, i know, loooong tangent, sorry.
follow your bliss,mike

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby cynic » Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:34 am

i'm sorry chuck,
it was not my intent to suggest that you or steve were out to put anybody in concentration camps, i'm working on proper apologies and an offer of my thoughts and motivations on this subject, but i need some sleep now. the apology couldn't wait.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby Chuck Messer » Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:54 am

Much appreciated, Mike. Politics has become more polarized since the 50's, and I am concerned we could end up with a bloodless version of the situation in the Roman republic that led to Caesar's rise to power. I don't want a Caesar, Democrat or Republican.

People need protection from those in power, and I feel those protections have been eroding for the last sixty years. I think the erosion has accelerated in the last twenty-five years, especially in the last decade.

What's happening in Arizona is a symptom of this, in my opinion.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:19 pm

Messer is dead on correct. Since the 60s the crazy right has gone farther and farther to the right--Reagan, then Bush really cemented that. The odd thing is the media gave them more credibility the farther right they went.

It's a hand slapping sin to go to the left--even the mushy liberal center, but you can bury your head in Ann Coulter's cootch and whistle dixie.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby Chuck Messer » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:47 pm

Oh, and I keep forgetting: Frank, sometimes I have moments of dark cynicism that make Mike look like Polyanna.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby Moderator » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:56 pm

cynic wrote:i mostly agree, what is most objectionable is that the vociferous loons on both fringes are held up as the voice of the mainstream, -by the opposing party-.


Agreed completely. The issue, I think, is one of scale. There are perhaps six or seven "goons" on the left versus several tens of them on the right. The goons on the left are not leading vast rallies of sub-goons. They tend to be seen by the middle of the party as an annoyance but one which is not exerting undue influence on the overall leftist agenda. The same cannot be said of the right in that the goons are driving party policy, while the middle sits on their hands and mutters agreement lest they be cast from office. The leftist goons have gone along with the concept of compromise (which is how we got the health bill, which despite the rhetoric is a good thing if you've actually read it), while the right goons are deliberately not compromising, and are, in fact, refusing to participate in a democratic government.

cynic wrote: You know...you're either a bleeding heart radical liberal commie chump...or a greedy xenophobic war & fear-mongering corporate goon.
If you vote independant, you're just a loon wasting a vote, and Everybody hates you (That's where i get stuck... if i'm lucky. I'm usually just cursed at as a dem chump or a rep goon).


Yep, true enough.

cynic wrote:but rather than a mere 30yr., think joe mccarthy, Weather underground and george wallace.


Yes, well, I tend to wish we were moving forward, not backwards. Using your analogy we might just as well mention slavery to demonstrate how much we've improved race relations.

cynic wrote:lbj was a trip, and everyone found something to hate about that guy. Unfortunately, obama is getting some of the same treatment.


Yep, I'd agree. The problem with being a centrist is that you have two sides taking pot shots at you. It reminds me of the tall/short/fat/skinny man who was a character in The Phantom Tollbooth.

cynic wrote:
Barber wrote: Money where the mouth is, guys: you want smaller government and lower taxes, reduce the amount you're getting from the Feds above and beyond your own taxation. Simple.
TANGENT ALERT:
i think some of this has been addressed by others on the pav. or here, but if not, here goes.
the disparity lies partly in the interstate highways (and bridges(some to nowhere)), infrastructure, but mainly farm, energy and military subsidies (and whatever other pork has been cast on the water).


Some of them are legitimate projects, but a good deal of it can also be classified as pork. I'm not suggesting the benefitting states ought to be deprived of the pork, but cut back on it by, say 20%. Just the overage over the taxes they pay.

cynic wrote:good luck sorting all this cost/benefit out, aside from basicaly restructuring a large portion of the fabric of the nation, you may actually be taking money from more dems than reps, if you do it on a "by state" basis.


So? Who said it was designed to affect only one party?

cynic wrote:the #1 fed crumb snatcher? new mexico, solid dem
#2...................? alaska, solid rep, booooooooo! let'em secede!
#3...................? west virginia, solid dem, aaah, screw 'em anyway.
of the remaining 15 top leeches, 5 are a competative party split, 3 lean dem, and another 4 are solid dem.
Secession may be a more likely approach.


Not sure what you're basing this on. Is it the overall dollar figures or the percentage of taxes paid versus benefits received? Big difference if the amount being challenged is the overage. But again, this is not a partisan plan. This is an equalization plan.

cynic wrote:and again, what of the social contract?


Why does the social contract only come to play when someone is being deprived of benefits. Doesn't the social contract also mean that Californians ought to be able to reallocate some of the $68B we send to the rest of the country so that we can put our own economic house in order, and then resume paying for others?

cynic wrote:who is paying now ? (i won't marry these OECD stats., but just for now...) CORPORATIONS ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom ... ountry.svg


Mike? So? Corporations pay those taxes as a result of money we give to them for services. We still, ultimately, pay the revenues that pay the taxes.

cynic wrote:yer not gonna like this either
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometax ... ysmost.htm


No I'm not, because about.com is not a government site. It may say "usgovinfo" but it is no better or reliable a resource than is Wikipedia. I use blue (since you didn't like my red) to highlight where this is hardly authoritative or unbiased reporting.

cynic wrote:"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent."


It appears this document hasn't been updated for roughly five years. I might also note that "top 50% of all taxpayers" is a ridiculous measurement. In 2007, using the statistics of The Tax Foundation, the average income for the top 50% was $1,083,243. Average. Go back and look at that number. Average. I'm in the top 20% and can assure you my own income is nowhere near a million buck, so somebody is skewing the average towards the top and it's above my own bracket.

The average for the bottom 50% is $32,261. Average.

In 2007, the top .1% -- one tenth of one percent -- of taxpayers earned 11.98% of the income in the country. The bottom 50% earned a smidge more: 12.26%.

(The source cited by the Foundation is the good ol' US IRS)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html

cynic wrote:unless of course you insist that only reps & teabaggers and cash based criminals cheat on taxes?


Not in the least. But I'd be willing to bet that there are more dollars at stake when a .1% person cheats than if a 50%er cheats. And, well, who is going to have the better accountant, even if they're not cheating?

cynic wrote:"Money where the mouth is, guys" ???
no steve, military AND entitlements mean more taxes for all, even if we phase out military...i wish us luck with that.
yeah, i know, loooong tangent, sorry.


I love the way the word "entitlements" has joined "liberal" as an epithet. Let's discuss those entitlements. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (oops, there's the social contract again). What was it the Tea Partier said recently: Keep the government's hands off her Medicare?

Once people truly understand what "entitlements are, let's see how quickly they want them cut. All too often they're thinking "food stamps", while cashing their own retirement checks on the way to the doctor's office. Remember how BUsh wanted to privatize social security? Um, yeah. You can pretty much see how that would have turned out. My own 401K took a nasty hit. I'd hate to think my entire retirement plan went the same way. (As it is, I'm pretty much working until I'm 70 courtesy the economy.)

I don't disagree with a lot of your sentiment, Mike, but when you look at the statistics and reality of what is being discussed, there's not a lot of fairness or compromise going on, and the longer it takes for everyone to come to the table, the worse the namecalling is going to be.

THAT is my point.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby FinderDoug » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:09 pm

(As it is, I'm pretty much working until I'm 70 courtesy the economy.)


70? Quitter.

They're going to have to tip my cold, stiff body from my desk chair, and not by any choice of mine. I only hope the people a quarter of my age are scarred forever by the notion of the guy the company worked to death. (If I can't be wealthy, I can be an object lesson in career management.)

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby cynic » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:38 pm

steve
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state ... ation.aspx
Federal Spending by State Per Dollar of Federal Taxes
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
the sources i left out

"So? Who said it was designed to affect only one party? "
no one
but by your post "I will yet again ask the question (which no Conservative -- and I'm not saying you are one Mike -- has yet to answer): If fiscal conservatism is the key topic,... "
i saw your main focus as being on fiscal conservatives and the leech states that they hold majority .

i stand corrected
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:09 pm

Dougie, there's a book by Paul Fussell called Class, it mentions the fact that middle class people are the most paranoid about their jobs, since those cubicle jobs tend to get the big job losses lately. Middle class people worry that their class status will change if they lose their jobs.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby Moderator » Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:17 pm

Mike -
Got it. My reference to fiscal conservatism was that Tea Partiers, by and large, are most active in states that stand to lose in my plan. They want fiscal conservatism up until the point it's taking food out of their mouth. I can't fault the position, but think it's disingenuous to demand fiscal responsibility only as it applies to others.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Propaganda and the Arizona Immigration Debacle

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:20 pm

That's why I don't buy into their worldview. You take away a military base and the big government whiners will be out in the streets--"bring our base backkkk."

Also try to scale down military spending going towards Washington State. The liberal democrats there will turn into yowling war mongers at the drop of a sombrero.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests