freeflydrew 0 #1 November 11, 2003 http://msnbc.com/news/991865.asp?0cv=NA01 Quote Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush. QuoteNeoconservatives, Soros said, are exploiting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a preexisting agenda of preemptive war and world dominion. “Bush feels that on September 11th he was anointed by God,” Soros said. “He’s leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence.” Quote“America, under Bush, is a danger to the world,” Soros said. Then he smiled: “And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” Soros believes a “supremacist ideology” guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.” It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (“The enemy is listening”): “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me,” he said in a soft Hungarian accent. QuoteAsked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush? He said: “If someone guaranteed it.” ...(silence)... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DShiznit 0 #2 November 11, 2003 Holy schnikes!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 November 11, 2003 Now there's someone who should be given an award. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #4 November 11, 2003 me or him? seriously though, Soros puts into words the concern that so many people have regarding Bush and his global perspective. (<--- my opinion) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #5 November 11, 2003 I can't believe the conservatives around here have nothing to say about this. I'd think they be screaming from their desk tops what a travesty it is for a rich man to be supporting Democratic causes I, for one, would like to give Soros a big hug and a kiss Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #6 November 11, 2003 Kiss and hug him all you want, but buying someone out of office isn't democracy. Lotsa rich people are democrats, what do they care about increased taxes? 50% of billions is still billions. Just another dude with money making his opinion heard because the media listens when rich famous people talk. Nothing new and exciting here. Hi drew.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #7 November 11, 2003 QuoteKiss and hug him all you want, but buying someone out of office isn't democracy. You might want to tell the conservatives that. They do it all the time. The recent California Govenors race is one prime example. Darrell Issa tried to buy the Govenors mansion with 1.5 million of his own money, then cried, literally, when his advisors said it would look bad for him, and the republican party, if he continued to run for office.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 November 11, 2003 Huffington? I lived in Santa Barbara when that asshole moved in to the gerrymandered district and took it from Robert Lagomarsino, who was a consnsus building Republican. Huffington spent three dollars per resident of his money after carpetbagging from Texas. Also, 9 of the 15 richest congresspersons are Democrats (nobody even comes close to John Kerry's personal fortune). But, I'll also agree with some of what Soros says. As one of the far right wingers who frequents this board, I'll say that Bush scares me. I hope he's gone in January, 2005 and replaced with someone other than a Democrat. Maybe Harry Browne (a snowball's chance in hell) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #9 November 11, 2003 >Lotsa rich people are democrats, what do they care about increased > taxes? As they pay far, far more of them than anyone else, I'd say they have a say in how they are taxed. Interesting that tax cuts for the rich are an exclusively republican phenomenon though. >Just another dude with money making his opinion heard because the > media listens when rich famous people talk. They especially listen when rich famous people put their money where their mouth is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 November 11, 2003 Bill: Congress routinely exempts itself from laws. You don't think all those tax loopholes in the code (exemptions, etc.) are put there so that they don't face some personal benefit? You don't think that Congress creates laws that can protect them and soak others? I'm not a rich man (my net worth is pretty far into the negative range). But I support tax cuts for those that carry the load for everyone else. When I hear stats like "1/2 the benefit of the tax cut goes to the richest 5 percent in the country" I think things like, "No Shit?" Save a guy making 30k per year 1000 dollars, it's big money to him. Save a guy making 3,000,000 a year 100,000 and it could be said that the rich derived 99 percent of the benefit of this tax break, and thus argued to be a tax break for the rich. Same percentage saved, but the libs will call it a benefit to the rich. On the other hand, they'll say, "Only tax the rich. They can afford it." But, Congressmen will find a way to shelter theirs. Taxing the rich is class warfare. I don't find blaming rich people for the plight of the poor to be any better than blaming blacks for crime, Christians for hate crimes, or Republicans for the spread of AIDS. This Soros fella is apparently going to keep a lot of people employed. Good for him. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #11 November 11, 2003 *** I can't believe the conservatives around here have nothing to say about this. I'd think they be screaming from their desk tops what a travesty it is for a rich man to be supporting Democratic causes I, for one, would like to give Soros a big hug and a kiss - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sorry, no screaming here. It's a free country. The guy can spend his cash wherever he wants, although I wish he'd buy me a new rig before throwing all of it away . The funny thing is, liberals in Washington (McCain included) were falling over each other (very recently, in fact) trying to convince everybody they wanted the "money out of politics". I can't wait for them to get hold of this one. Oh wait, the money's coming to them, so I guess this doesn't count. And, in case you haven't noticed, practically all of the richest of the rich in Hollywood support your so called "progressive" politics and left wing causes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #12 November 11, 2003 >On the other hand, they'll say, "Only tax the rich. They can afford it." >But, Congressmen will find a way to shelter theirs. Of course. All part of the game. >Taxing the rich is class warfare. I don't find blaming rich people for > the plight of the poor to be any better than blaming blacks for >crime, Christians for hate crimes, or Republicans for the spread of AIDS. Who's "blaming the rich for the plight of the poor?" The issue isn't who to blame, it's how to get the money needed to run government. A scheme that would be both the least and most fair would be to charge everyone the same amount - after all, everyone benefits from the EPA, the military etc. so just bill everyone $12,000 a year, regardless of income. However, this ignores that this would put some people into bankruptcy while hardly affecting others, thus isn't that fair from both a moral standpoint and a practicality standpoint (people in debtor's prison can't pay taxes, and it would cost trillions to jail all the people who couldn't pay.) The next step would be a flat tax; everyone pays 20% of their income (adjusted on a year-to-year basis to account for the odd hundred billion to rebuild a country we attacked, for example.) This is both more and less fair. It's easier for the poor to pay, which is a big advantage from a practial standpoint (fewer people to throw in jail.) The next step is a progressive tax, which is what we have now. The rich pay an increasingly large percentage of their income as their average income goes up. This is even more fair from an ability-to-pay standpoint and even less fair from the point of view of paying for what you get from the government, since often it is the poor who make most use of government services like WIC, medicare and welfare. I think that either a flat or a progressive tax works well. Both are, to some degree, enforced leveling of income, but it has practical advantages in that it penalizes people who _can_ be penalized without seriously affecting their ability to pay. Historically, democrats lean more towards progressive taxes and republicans lean towards flat taxes. Republicans also favor loopholes like exempting capital gains from taxation; this is primarily a benefit for the rich since a larger percentage of their income comes from stock sales. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #13 November 11, 2003 Quote . . . practically all of the richest of the rich in Hollywood support your so called "progressive" politics and left wing causes. I know and god bless 'em. Eeeevery one of 'em Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 November 11, 2003 What about a sales tax? The rich consume more than the poor, right? Unless, of course, the rich one is a miser. But, a loophole allowing capital gains is a policy decision. Since investment is what really drives the economy, and it actually creates more money, the government has decided that investment will lead to different taxes down the road. And no, it is not fair to tax me 12k and Sen. Kerry 12k. Why, that would mean we pay more taxes than Arianna Huffington. And progressive taxes? You used the word that may have been a Freudian slip. You said the tax "penalizes." Taxes shouldn't be penal. Unfortunately, they are to the rich. They are a penalty to those who do well, and that's no way to run anything. The rich feel penalized. Rightfully so. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 November 11, 2003 QuoteThe funny thing is, liberals in Washington (McCain included) were falling over each other (very recently, in fact) trying to convince everybody they wanted the "money out of politics". I can't wait for them to get hold of this one. Oh wait, the money's coming to them, so I guess this doesn't count. Breaking with a nearly 30-year tradition, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean Saturday announced he would become the first Democratic presidential candidate ever to opt out of the system for publicly financing elections. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2211013 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #16 November 11, 2003 *** I think that either a flat or a progressive tax works well. ________________________________________________ I think flat tax is the way to go. Right now the system is so screwed up, with the richest people sheltering so much income, and poor people paying nothing, or receiving refunds on monies never paid. A progressive tax would be bearable if it weren't so damn convoluted, but once you start complicating the formula, it quickly gets out of control (like practically everything in Washington). A flat tax would guarantee that everybody pays something (which they should), and the wealthiest would still pay more, because they make more. And it still allows for capital formation and wealth effect factors to remain in place, which create new jobs for the chumps like me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #17 November 11, 2003 *** Breaking with a nearly 30-year tradition, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean Saturday announced he would become the first Democratic presidential candidate ever to opt out of the system for publicly financing elections. _________________________________________________ I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. All this shows is that Dean has SO MUCH cash, that he doesn't need the taxpayers' dime to finance his campaign. That's MORE money in politics, not less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 November 11, 2003 Yep...wasn't trying to defend anyone, just pointing out some current, relevant facts. However, for 30 years, since Watergate, the Democratic candidates have always limited themselves to what is permitted under that program, unlike the Republicans. Personally, I'm very much in favor of campaign finance reform. Both parties are equally guilty of manipulating the system in an effort to buy votes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StearmanR985 0 #19 November 11, 2003 Correct me if I am wrong here: Isn't the "$15.5 million" Soros put forth to oust Bush only 0.2% of his "$7 billion fortune"? Whoa, he sure is making a BIG sacrafice here. Not. "You're either with us or against us" And what if the United States became the ONLY influence in the world? Oh no, the whole world would be the "Land of the Free." Damn, freedom of choice around the world, now that would just suck. The U.S. is far from perfect but the last time I checked, it is a pretty good place to live. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites moodyskydiver 0 #20 November 11, 2003 Quotebut buying someone out of office isn't democracy. But buying people's way into office sure seems to be the trend... (not to step too deep into the political muck) "...just an earthbound misfit, I." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites meltdown 0 #21 November 11, 2003 *** Yep...wasn't trying to defend anyone, just pointing out some current, relevant facts. However, for 30 years, since Watergate, the Democratic candidates have always limited themselves to what is permitted under that program, unlike the Republicans. Personally, I'm very much in favor of campaign finance reform. Both parties are equally guilty of manipulating the system in an effort to buy votes. ________________________________________________ I gotcha. I personally don't favor so called campaign finance reform - it's just another infringment on the rights of individuals to say what they want to say. I'm far more concerned about vote buying schemes perpetuated by those already in office (new social experiments, amnesty for illegals, and the like). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,119 #22 November 11, 2003 >What about a sales tax? The rich consume more than the poor, >right? Unless, of course, the rich one is a miser. Sure, that could work. >But, a loophole allowing capital gains is a policy decision. Since > investment is what really drives the economy, and it actually creates > more money, the government has decided that investment will lead > to different taxes down the road. Right, a political decision that has the short term advantage of benefiting the rich and a long term advantage of promoting the economy. Progressive taxes do that as well. By allowing a low-wage worker to save more, they save more money and are more able to buy big-ticket items like houses. This also improves the economy. >And no, it is not fair to tax me 12k and Sen. Kerry 12k. Why, that >would mean we pay more taxes than Arianna Huffington. Depends on your definition of fair. You are both protected by our military; why wouldn't you pay the same amount for that protection? On the other hand, Kerry might well be more able to pay taxes than you, so it might be considered more "fair" to tax him more. Hence progressive taxes. >And progressive taxes? You used the word that may have been a > Freudian slip. You said the tax "penalizes." Taxes shouldn't be > penal. The term "tax penalty" is well known by anyone who prepares income taxes. Being required to pay under penalty of imprisonment - well, that penalizes people. You have to penalize them to some degree; the government needs money to buy bombs to drop on Iraq, and then more money to fill in the craters. You can do it via a sales tax, property tax, income tax etc. >They are a penalty to those who do well, and that's no way to run > anything. The rich feel penalized. Rightfully so. Everyone's penalized to some degree by taxes. Distributing them such that the ones most able to pay a lot do pay a lot seems the fairest way to me. That's true of both a progressive tax and a flat tax. Oddly, you claimed the third alternative (a fixed tax) is unfair. Which means you think all taxation is unfair. So be it; but it's one of those constants that we'll never get away from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerry81 10 #23 November 11, 2003 Quote The U.S. is far from perfect but the last time I checked, it is a pretty good place to live. While I've no intention of arguing with the above statement... Quote Oh no, the whole world would be the "Land of the Free." ...it should be noted that the american "freedom" seems to have a very flexible meaning that does not necessarily at all times coincide with how the rest of the world understands the term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #24 November 11, 2003 Quote, for one, would like to give Soros a big hug and a kiss nope I'm not going to say it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Muenkel 0 #25 November 11, 2003 Quotedoes not necessarily at all times coincide with how the rest of the world understands the term. There's a rest of the world? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
moodyskydiver 0 #20 November 11, 2003 Quotebut buying someone out of office isn't democracy. But buying people's way into office sure seems to be the trend... (not to step too deep into the political muck) "...just an earthbound misfit, I." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #21 November 11, 2003 *** Yep...wasn't trying to defend anyone, just pointing out some current, relevant facts. However, for 30 years, since Watergate, the Democratic candidates have always limited themselves to what is permitted under that program, unlike the Republicans. Personally, I'm very much in favor of campaign finance reform. Both parties are equally guilty of manipulating the system in an effort to buy votes. ________________________________________________ I gotcha. I personally don't favor so called campaign finance reform - it's just another infringment on the rights of individuals to say what they want to say. I'm far more concerned about vote buying schemes perpetuated by those already in office (new social experiments, amnesty for illegals, and the like). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #22 November 11, 2003 >What about a sales tax? The rich consume more than the poor, >right? Unless, of course, the rich one is a miser. Sure, that could work. >But, a loophole allowing capital gains is a policy decision. Since > investment is what really drives the economy, and it actually creates > more money, the government has decided that investment will lead > to different taxes down the road. Right, a political decision that has the short term advantage of benefiting the rich and a long term advantage of promoting the economy. Progressive taxes do that as well. By allowing a low-wage worker to save more, they save more money and are more able to buy big-ticket items like houses. This also improves the economy. >And no, it is not fair to tax me 12k and Sen. Kerry 12k. Why, that >would mean we pay more taxes than Arianna Huffington. Depends on your definition of fair. You are both protected by our military; why wouldn't you pay the same amount for that protection? On the other hand, Kerry might well be more able to pay taxes than you, so it might be considered more "fair" to tax him more. Hence progressive taxes. >And progressive taxes? You used the word that may have been a > Freudian slip. You said the tax "penalizes." Taxes shouldn't be > penal. The term "tax penalty" is well known by anyone who prepares income taxes. Being required to pay under penalty of imprisonment - well, that penalizes people. You have to penalize them to some degree; the government needs money to buy bombs to drop on Iraq, and then more money to fill in the craters. You can do it via a sales tax, property tax, income tax etc. >They are a penalty to those who do well, and that's no way to run > anything. The rich feel penalized. Rightfully so. Everyone's penalized to some degree by taxes. Distributing them such that the ones most able to pay a lot do pay a lot seems the fairest way to me. That's true of both a progressive tax and a flat tax. Oddly, you claimed the third alternative (a fixed tax) is unfair. Which means you think all taxation is unfair. So be it; but it's one of those constants that we'll never get away from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #23 November 11, 2003 Quote The U.S. is far from perfect but the last time I checked, it is a pretty good place to live. While I've no intention of arguing with the above statement... Quote Oh no, the whole world would be the "Land of the Free." ...it should be noted that the american "freedom" seems to have a very flexible meaning that does not necessarily at all times coincide with how the rest of the world understands the term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #24 November 11, 2003 Quote, for one, would like to give Soros a big hug and a kiss nope I'm not going to say it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #25 November 11, 2003 Quotedoes not necessarily at all times coincide with how the rest of the world understands the term. There's a rest of the world? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
