Obamacare bill contains 3.8% tax on homes sales capital gains for high income earners

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV], but I still think of the left/right spectrum as being socialism on the left and capitalism on the right.[/quote]
Wait. What? So capitalism is the hard right now? What a shame if some people think that now.
I thought hard right was supposed to be Nationalism, Fascism, etc…[/quote]

KSM: So, here’s a fun thought exercise for you. It’s widely held that the Nazis, while fascist, were also largely corporatists (most of the Nazi war-making industries were owned by senior Nazi Party members.)

As of late, certain folks have argued that the US is now largely a corporate state, with the office of president being held by people largely bought and paid for by corporate and/or moneyed interests.

So, if Clinton, Dubya and Obama are corporatists and the Nazis were corporatists, then…

[SK in CV]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV], but I still think of the left/right spectrum as being socialism on the left and capitalism on the right.[/quote]
Wait. What? So capitalism is the hard right now? What a shame if some people think that now.
I thought hard right was supposed to be Nationalism, Fascism, etc…[/quote]

No, that’s not anything like what I said. Neither socialism nor capitalism are at extreme ends of the spectrum.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=KSMountain][quote=SK in CV], but I still think of the left/right spectrum as being socialism on the left and capitalism on the right.[/quote]
Wait. What? So capitalism is the hard right now? What a shame if some people think that now.
I thought hard right was supposed to be Nationalism, Fascism, etc…[/quote]

No, that’s not anything like what I said. Neither socialism nor capitalism are at extreme ends of the spectrum.[/quote]

What’s difficult about defining left/right is that we often conflate social and economic theories.

IMO, on one end of the economic spectrum, we would have collective ownership (not government ownership, BTW), with each person having as much control over resources as the next. The government would only exist to make sure this division was maintained.

On the other side of the spectrum, we’d have concentrated ownership where a handful of people/entities own or control all resources, and everyone else has to work for them in order to survive. Corporatism, capitalism, communism, etc. would all fall under this umbrella term.

In between, we’d have mixed economies of varying degrees, with the government encouraging either the concentration or dilution of wealth in order to achieve certain economic (and social, though that would be secondary) goals.

IOW, we are taught that we need to focus on whether or not those who control the wealth and resources are “public” (in name only, the masses have no control over this “public” owner) or “private” entities. The people who rule us tend to be the same, no matter what color hat they wear. I’m far more concerned about the **concentration** of wealth/power than the “public/private” label of those who control it.

………….

I believe that we can look at other terms WRT political power and social ideologies, with less of an emphasis on economics.

IMO, by using social issues that tend to be more emotional in nature, the PTB are better able to sway the masses toward their respective goals — which are usually economic, and focus on giving certain people the primary control over the bulk of the world’s assets.

Though both economic and social policies affect one another, I think they are separate and distinct, even if it’s not officially taught that way.

[KSMountain]

Well, it’s kind of a cop-out to post a wikipedia link, but this is somewhat interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]

Though both economic and social policies affect one another, I think they are separate and distinct, even if it’s not officially taught that way.[/quote]

CAR: It’s easier for politicians to “move” the masses if they focus on social issues, especially those wedge issues that really fire up their respective bases. Plus, it deflects attention/focus AWAY from economic issues (wage stagnation, income inequality, the emergence (over the last 30 years) of an oligarchic/kleptocratic elite, etc), thus enabling both parties from having to address, in any sort of substantive fashion, the real situation in this country.

Thus, we have Obama, who truly isn’t any different from Dubya, right down to continuing Dubya’s deplorable policies, including ignoring the worst abuses of Wall Street, all whilst playing the “class warfare” card.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Lastly, Le Duc Tho was not a Viet Cong. [/quote]

Ok, technically you’re right.

I think that you’re drawing a distinction that’s has no bearing on my argument that Nixon secretly negotiated with the enemy and abandoned our friends.

Most Americans think of Vietnamese Communists as Viet Congs and I’m using the vernacular, not the technical word. Even Vietnamese-Americans use the word Viet Congs to describe the Communists of today.

I’d love for you to go to Little Saigon and tell Vietnamese anti-communists that the Viet Congs no longer exist. They might think you’re a communist sympathizer.

BTW, growing up, I heard many stories… My dad worked in SE Asia for many years during and after the Vietnam War. He’s almost an expert in the matter.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] CAR: It’s easier for politicians to “move” the masses if they focus on social issues, especially those wedge issues that really fire up their respective bases.[/quote]

Not all social issues are the same.

The world has evolved Allan. Conservative focus on backward issues while liberals want progress on issues that matter to people’s lives — issues that contribute to quality of live no matter economic boom or recession.

Mark my words, Allan, sooner or later,
we will have universal health care;
we will have gay marriage;
we will pass the Dream Act;
we will have a path to citizenship for immigrants already in this country;
we will reaffirm the right to choice,
we will strenghten the separation of church and state, etc…

In the future, we will look back and think, WTF were we thinking.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter]

Though both economic and social policies affect one another, I think they are separate and distinct, even if it’s not officially taught that way.[/quote]

CAR: It’s easier for politicians to “move” the masses if they focus on social issues, especially those wedge issues that really fire up their respective bases. Plus, it deflects attention/focus AWAY from economic issues (wage stagnation, income inequality, the emergence (over the last 30 years) of an oligarchic/kleptocratic elite, etc), thus enabling both parties from having to address, in any sort of substantive fashion, the real situation in this country.

Thus, we have Obama, who truly isn’t any different from Dubya, right down to continuing Dubya’s deplorable policies, including ignoring the worst abuses of Wall Street, all whilst playing the “class warfare” card.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”[/quote]

Absolutely right, Allan. The two-party system (and all the nonsensical emotional rhetoric spewed by these bought politicians) isn’t about giving “We the People” a voice as much as it’s about keeping us divided and distracted while the puppet masters make off with the loot.

And thanks for being such an intelligent, informed, and balanced poster from the conservative side, Allan. It’s always a pleasure to hear your perspective.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

Praying to God is completely without facts. It’s a total waste of time that’s bordering on the delusional.[/quote]

Would have to disagree with Brian once again. (Allan is smiling)

Deep spiritual prayer is essentially meditation. Meditation is essentially mental exercise that help train the mind. Studies of all forms of meditation, from Taoism, to Buddhism, to Yoga, to Meditative prayer found in Islam/Christianity/Judaism, all points to stimulation and thicker areas in the frontal lobe that regulate emotion and cognitive planning. Essentially the meditation practitioner becomes happier by being able to control negative feelings and enhance positive feelings.

So there’s nothing wrong with prayer to a false god or allah. Because often times blind faith make these prayers work better. The problem just comes when different groups claim their false god is superior and the one and only. And that is the problem central to the Abrahamic religions.

[scaredyclassic]

there’s a decent sized body of research showing prayer actually worsens medical outcomes, when people know they’re being prayed over.

Too much pressure to get better, so they get worse.

That’s why i always ask people not to pray for me.

However, I have recently started to wear a yarmulke.

[briansd1]

[quote=ocrenter]Meditation is essentially mental exercise that help train the mind. [/quote]

True. Meditation and self-reflection are good.

[quote=ocrenter]
So there’s nothing wrong with prayer to a false god or allah. Because often times blind faith make these prayers work better.
[/quote]

The prayers work better, or the meditation works better? Prayers is communication or petition to a God or object of worship, like asking Jesus for good health.

Like I said, ignorance is bliss. There’s nothing wrong with falsely believing that your spouse is faithful to you if that helps you be happier.

[livinincali]

The only difference between the R’s and the D’s is their definition of what “For the Greater Good” means. Our country’s founders attempted to emphasize individual liberties and rights above “for the greater good” because they knew the slippery slope that “for the greater good” can become. People have used “For the Greater Good” to commit all kinds of heinous acts, including Hilter, Stalin, Castro, etc.

I believe in libertarian principles of individual rights and a rule of law when someone’s rights are violated. If you’re willing to violate someones individual rights to get to your vision of the world utopia, your utopia is another person’s hell.

[briansd1]

Hitler again? Is it really necessary and relevant to bring him up?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Thus, we have Obama, who truly isn’t any different from Dubya, right down to […][/quote]

Right down to passing Healthcare Reform.

Right down to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Right down to ending wars instead of starting them.

Right down to actually killing some real terrorists (not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens for the benefit of his oil buddies.)

The “both parties are the same” lament is a pathetic cliche.

Pathetic.

[henrysd]

I just read a different article saying rent income may be exempt from 3.8% Obama tax if you can prove it is active income. Obama law actually says 3.8% on unearned income normally from passively income including capital gain and dividend.

If you manage the rental homes actively, you are making an active income, so it does not subject to the 3.8% tax for high earners.

My article is from
http://www.billlosey.com/articles/taxing-the-rich-to-pay-for-health-care.php

[Author]

Posts