User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 182

  1. #61
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Which is why I said:



    The fact that a curiously high number of your political posts involve the tea party, and general anger against the same, GIVES THE IMPRESSION, that those concerned with social issues comprise the majority.

    I never argued that you think that, but merely that the frequency with which you bitch about the tea party gives that impression to outside viewers.
    I do tend to bitch about extremist groups but in my mind they're very distinct from "normal" people i.e. Christians who are not far-right gay beating, abortion clinic bombers have my respect, as do Muslims who are not affiliated with Al-Quaeda, Republicans who are not are Tea Party types, Democrats who are not PETA members or people who hate whites because they're so over-preoccupied with not being racist that they become racist themselves....hmm, let's see...if you'll notice, all the people I wanted to punch were people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I never said I'd lay a finger on George Bush Sr. or Ronald Reagan...in essence, I tend to bitch about people who are so entrenched in an extremist stance that I find them to be, well, potentially dangerous (if not already dangerous).

    In that sense, I may come across as some hyperbolic crazy pundit, but sometimes I'm just outraged and afraid these extremist groups might get a foothold.

    I concede your point about health care is fair.

    Oh...another thing, too...the reason I keep referring to the Tea Party in this thread is because it's been stated over and over again in the news that Boehner is worried about alienating the Tea Party, et al, to be clear.

  2. #62
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Thank you much!

  3. #63
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Oh...latest news update. Republicans are trying to make this about "the troops." How sad that they're still attempting to abuse that tired old propaganda.

    Why don't they just be honest? Why don't they say "Our morality is individualism. Under our morality we feel that the rich have a right to not pay taxes if they don't want to, and we morally prefer to protect the interests of big business. We like to spend money too, just on things like war, and propping up corporations. We disagree with your morality, liberals, that we are a united people who should live together in a cohesive society who thinks about the greater concern of all citizens, not just white Christians and the wealthy."

    The troops. The fucking troops. Somebody should seriously punch Boehner. It's a fucking pathetic piece of propaganda used to shield their real agenda.
    Called the blame game and scapegoat/scare tactic. Used quite a bit in politics. If they can't get people to cut what they want to cut, the bill to extend government funding won't go through, now we can't pay the troops in service because of it. Changing the subject from their giant cuts to, because we can't get this bill passed, our troops won't get paid and scaring those who really do care about the troops.

    Sort of like, because we can't extend unemployment benefits, we can't help those who are still looking for a job (and yes, I have a problem with those unemployment benefits too... it could of been used in a better way.)

    Heck, I care about the troops, but what Boehner(gahhh I keep saying Boner ) and some other republicans are doing are using the troops for their agenda. If you can't manipulate someone one way, you try to manipulate that person in another way. You tag that idea with other ideas you want to go along with the bill. It is sort of like earmarks. Except, in this case, it becomes, pay the troops. But at the same time, please remove Planned Parenthood and EPA because we don't want it. I mean, if the house really wanted to pay the troops, they wouldn't have tagged the EPA and Planned Parenthood along with it.

  4. #64
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    An honest to goodness universal health care system (which is not what we've received so far) would actually save an enormous amount of money (by being a much more efficient singular replacement for Medicaid, Medicare, etc..) so it actually fits in as a piece of debt reduction rather than standing against it.

    EDIT: Furthermore, I don't believe progressive taxes remove incentive to work so long as the progression does not out-pace the increase in income itself, and that it never reaches 100%. As long as you can get paid more, you have incentive. And I will point out that people in the top 1% would be pocketing a pretty sum of money if if they were taxed 90%. Aside from that, I don't believe hard work and getting rich correlate that much anyway, so I think the affect a progressive tax would have on that is negligible compared to the benefits. It's almost guaranteed that in the near future I will get a job that pays $13.47 an hour full time for screwing around with files in an office. That salary, even adjusting for inflation, is more than my father ever made in his life, and he supported four children and a wife. He worked in a lumberyard for most of his work history. The job I'm going to get is no where near as hard as his was, and he frequently worked over time

    As for progressive taxes being discriminatory, yes, they are by design, and it makes sense. A flat tax isn't really equal at all, because taxes impact people at different income levels differently. If I followed your suggestion, a 10% tax on me would mean a 10% on all above me including the top 1%, which is a pittance incapable of funding much anything. But, if I wanted to tax the top 1% 70%, everyone bellow would be, too, and I'd be homeless.. The top 1$ would still be living lavishly, however.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #65

    Default

    Ha! Another secret victory for the pan-European Empire!!!

  6. #66
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    An honest to goodness universal health care system (which is not what we've received so far) would actually save an enormous amount of money (by being a much more efficient singular replacement for Medicaid, Medicare, etc..) so it actually fits in as a piece of debt reduction rather than standing against it.

    EDIT: Furthermore, I don't believe progressive taxes remove incentive to work so long as the progression does not out-pace the increase in income itself, and that it never reaches 100%. As long as you can get paid more, you have incentive. And I will point out that people in the top 1% would be pocketing a pretty sum of money if if they were taxed 90%. Aside from that, I don't believe hard work and getting rich correlate that much anyway, so I think the affect a progressive tax would have on that is negligible compared to the benefits. It's almost guaranteed that in the near future I will get a job that pays $13.47 an hour full time for screwing around with files in an office. That salary, even adjusting for inflation, is more than my father ever made in his life, and he support four children and a wife. He worked in a lumberyard for most of his work history. The job I'm going to get is no where near as hard as his was, and he frequently worked over time

    As for progressive taxes being discriminatory, yes, they are by design, and it makes sense. A flat tax isn't really equal at all, because taxes impact people at different income levels differently. If I followed your suggestion, a 10% tax on me would mean a 10% on all above me including the top 1%, which is a pittance incapable of funding much anything. But, if I wanted to tax the top 1% 70%, everyone bellow would be, too, and I'd be homeless.. The top 1$ would still be living lavishly, however.
    Yup, working class people are actually some of the hardest working people (particularly those who do manual labor) and it's really not a way to get rich. You can get rich by being smart, being lucky, or by having the right opportunities or education...it's not all hard work. I get paid more right now for writing/editing that I consider relatively easy (since it's my natural strength and I work at my own pace for the most part) than I did for doing hellacious awful dirty stressful physically exhausting emotionally draining work.

    A lot of poor people who get assistence still work, anyway. You can get medicaid for mental health or physical disabilities and still work if you don't qualify for SSI (that's only for the extremely disabled, hello people!) ...and I don't see how giving people universal health care is going to keep anyone out of the work force. If anything, it will keep people healthier to do their jobs.

    The only problem I personally have with the welfare system is that some fathers think they don't have to support the children they've created...and by the same token, some young women are also reproducing thoughtlessly without thinking of the realistic long-term consequences. It's just that I become incensed when I think of all the men who are not being fathers because they know welfare will feed their children.

    On the other hand, those children do need to be cared for, and single parents should receive help because they have to be parents...it's not like they can just spend all their time working and not take care of their kids. That doesn't make any sense either.

  7. #67

    Default

    America.

    All your bases are belong to us.

  8. #68
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    "Government shutdown"? Seriously? Anarchy just doesn't work with 300 million people...

    So what is really going on here?

  9. #69
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Well... you're currently doing a pretty damn good impression of their mirror image.

    The VAST majority of republicans have no stake in the social issues, i.e. abortion, gay marriage etc. Referring to the conservative extreme as frequently as you do gives the impression, from your side's POV at least, that all Republicans think as our extremists do.
    And that's why only 23% of Republicans support gay marriage? And why the gay issue has been such an effective Republican fund raising tool? Or why the judges in Iowa were voted out of office for supporting gay marriage? And why new state Republican legislatures started tackling social issues last year?

    To be fair, though, only 17% of Republican respondants in a recent gallup poll claimed that social issues were most important to them. It would be interesting to see a ranking, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I could have harped about how Obama represents the socialization of American politics, but I didn't and won't. I could get on my soapbox about Dennis Kucinich and his ilk, but I don't.
    That's because Obama is a moderate, middle of the road Democrat, very far from a socialist. If Ronald Reagan were around today, he would be drummed out of the Republican party as too liberal (and called a socialist)... he raised taxes when needed, spent as needed for worthwhile efforts, sometimes placed the environment over corporate interests, was tolerant (or reasonably so) on social issues (for the time), and even supported amnesty for hard-working illegal immigrants.

    Still, I agree with you about Kucinich (despite his support for the repeal of DADT)... I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post

    Do you know why?

    Because I realize that there is more to the Democratic point of view than tax and spend.

    What you haven't realized is that for our political system to reach such an unpalatable impasse as this, we must be facing a fairly serious situation. If it wasn't for our nearly insurmountable debt, the republican party wouldn't unify sufficiently to attempt to pass a budget that has so many social issue riders as the Ryan Budget does.

    Not to mention you guys did the exact same God damn thing when Obama got into office. Facing a serious fiscal crisis and crushing unemployment, what do y'all do? Legislate your morals (universal healthcare is the biggest democratic wet dream ever) by pushing through health care reform when you did, instead of focus on the most pressing issues with the economy and wait till later for your pet projects.
    Yes, it's a good thing that Republicans didn't pass Medicare Part D during the depths of the previous recession. Good thing they made sure it was well funded and had the ability to negotiate for drug prices!

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    So I don't wanna hear about how fucked up it is that our budget includes proposals to defund planned parenthood.
    That thought will be very comforting to those who can't afford birth control and end up having to support another child.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We're just playing the game as it's always been played. Your opening offer is never as much as you are willing to pay now is it?

    I want to see some reasonable discussion where we can meet in the middle, as I am freely willing to do.

    For instance...

    I'll freely admit that taxes should probably be raised, and the code simplified. I just think that the raises should be equal across all tax brackets (or the govt has effectively subsidized a disincentive to work hard, not to mention legislatively discriminating against a class of people based merely upon socioeconomic status).
    So is that after we let the Bush tax cuts expire? Because the Paul Ryan plan cuts services for the poor AND gives the rich a big tax break. And you do realize we have less economic mobility than the countries of Europe, and that while most people's pay has been stagnating (despite big gains in productivity), the richest among as are gaining more and more of the wealth, but their tax burden is at historic lows. (And yes, I'm aware that the top quintile pays more federal income tax as a group than has been true historically, but that's what happens when you have even a mildly progressive income tax and wealth becomes ultra-concentrated in the top 0.1%.)

    As Adam Smith (that well-known communist/socialist/Marxist) said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith
    The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    That having been said, I am sympathetic to having a system structured in such a way that it encourages people to work. Living on handouts (even the government kind) is no way to build autonomy and self-esteem... nor can we afford to pay everyone to sit around.

    Instead, it seems like we have the worst of both worlds in some ways. A system in which it's economically more beneficial for some who can work to be on welfare is broken. A system that fails to support children being raised by two parents in a stable environment is broken. A system in which you can work hard full time and not make a living wage is broken. A system in which the rich can pass down all of their wealth and thereby create a fixed ruling class is broken.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post

    I'll also admit that we need to get out of the middle east before it sinks us, and that we need to rethink the way we fund the Pentagon.
    Totally agree with you, there. It's not sustainable for us to pay for 46% of all military spending in the entire world. It's ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I try to meet the opposition half way, because that's how our system works...

    By compromise.

    It would be refreshing to see some concessions from your side for a change of pace.
    Concessions? Like extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, despite it being a less effective economic stimulus and in the face of massive deficits and record incomes for the wealthiest? Like leaving Guantanamo Bay open? Like not giving civil trials to "suspected terrorists?" Like renewing the Patriot Act? Like giving immunity to telecoms for warrantless surveillance? Like abandoning the single payer option for health care and leaving our health care system privatized and employer based (effectively implementing the Republican proposals from only a few years ago)? Concessions like that?

    Despite scare tactics describing the "socialist takeover," I sure haven't seen one materialize.

    In the real world compromise does mean no one gets exactly what they want. Democrats haven't been getting what they want, either. Republicans refusing to budge on the raising taxes is not compromise.

    Meanwhile, it is terrifying that the government seems incapable of making a plan that will eventually balance the budget. This very slow recovery (especially for the job market) is not the time to immediately enforce brutal austerity measures. However, I'm all for laying down the long range plan to balance the budget. I just fear we don't have the political self-discipline to make such a plan, much less stick to it.

    Update:

    Quote Originally Posted by NewYorkTimes
    Officials said that Democrats had made concessions on both money and policy, and had moved toward the position of House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio on the overall level of spending, agreeing to $37 billion in cuts, with less of it coming from the Pentagon than Democrats had initially sought.

    [...]

    The different interpretations showed that, with a partial shutdown of the federal government becoming more likely, both sides were trying to frame the causes of the impasse to their political advantage. Some top Republicans worry that they are danger of being seen to shut down the government over social issues and a relatively small difference in money. Mr. Boehner on Wednesday had sought $39 billion in spending cuts, only $1.5 billion more than the Democrats were ready to accept overnight.
    Last edited by Seymour; 04-08-2011 at 08:33 AM.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    "Government shutdown"? Seriously? Anarchy just doesn't work with 300 million people...

    So what is really going on here?
    Its not anarchy its the first move in the socialist takeover sponsored by an international bankers conspiracy against the very life blood of American patriots and their families, they've had it in for the US ever since the day of the founding fathers you know (add blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah)

Similar Threads

  1. In this part of the United States, principals still legally hit students
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-23-2015, 02:40 PM
  2. Finding the proper role of government in modern society.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 07:25 PM
  3. My fear of giving in to the self. on love
    By Bokeh in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-09-2010, 09:51 AM
  4. TP's/FP's: Effects of Fi in last place vs "preferred" position?
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 07:30 AM
  5. U.S.E (United states of Europe)
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 01:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO