User Tag List

First 412131415162464 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 798

  1. #131
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I've already said elsewhere that I'm open to taxes on the middle class, that I want big cuts to the defense budget, and that a true national health system in place of Medicaid and Medicare would cut health care costs in half or perhaps down to about 60% of what they currently are.
    So, low and behold, I'm not limiting my solutions to increasing taxes on the rich. Saying that increased taxes on the rich will fail to rid the earth of its ills is not a great argument against doing so.



    The Democrats have simply been less hypocritical for a couple of decades. And, hypocritical or not, they've played nicer and been more cooperative. For this reason the USA's political spectrum as rapidly moved right since 1980, and to hear Republicans complaining about Democrats wanting it their was is just ridiculous.
    Now we are getting somewhere interesting. How do we chart hipocrisy? Are there graphs? OMG PLEASE TELL ME THERE IS A VENN DIAGRAM!! (God, I love me some Venn Diagrams. Nothing solves a problem more than that. I have already decided that whomever I marry needs to ask me via Venn Diagram or I will be forced to say no.) Also, how do we define "nicer" and "more cooperative"? Are we employing the scientific method here? Is there a control group?

  2. #132
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    *sigh*

    If I heard this statement to come from a Republican congressman, I'd call it extreme hypocrisy. The Republicans have struck me unbudging, extremists and obstructionists. This mandate to do whatever the Democrats want? Apparently that's what it's called when we want one fucking concession from the Republican party.
    Here's the issue: if you all were willing to actually concede on real entitlement reform, we'd be willing to concede on increased tax revenue. In fact, that's exactly what Boehner has been saying. The proper ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, imo (and I take cue from David Walker, the former longtime Comptroller of the Currency, and one of the foremost experts on this issue), is 3:1. Give me a 3:1 deal, where the spending cuts are real (as are the tax increases), and aren't just accounting gimmicks or can simply be written off by a future Congress, and I take it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    And you know who has made the best case for the power of the Democratic party right now? The Republican party. They're the ones that have spent the past two years basically saying "we are guaranteed to take control of the government in 2012, or may lightning strike us dead". Well, it's time for that lightning, folks!
    I don't think that's anything close to what Republicans have been thinking.

    I never once thought we'd take the Senate, and I thought we were undoubtedly underdogs for the Presidency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    If someone actually said that, that person is being an idiot. That does not seem to relate to what I consider the general Democratic position, which is just for some concessions.
    It seems to be the position of just about every liberal posting about politics on my facebook newsfeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    My response here is pretty much the same as the response to Saturned above. That the best thing you can say for the Republicans this election cycle is that they still have the House majority at all is damning praise.
    I don't see it as damning praise at all.

    The entire House was up for election, and the American People put the Republicans squarely in charge.

    There were all kinds of absurd factors (the Akin's, the Murdock's, et al) that caused the election to go how it did.

    And how it went was a divided government, with the Democrats in control of the Presidency, and one house of Congress.

    The Republicans got the other house, not the Democrats, so if you want to get something done, it's gunna have to go through us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    And the Democrats are not asking for particularly much as far as I'm concerned. You are completely over-reacting to a demand for the Bush era tax cuts to expire on the wealthy.
    The way I reacted wasn't due to a proposal to raise tax rates on "the wealthy" (frankly, making $250K in Manhattan makes you rather middle class), it was due to your tone, and it was intended as a lesson. If Democrats think they're going to strongarm Republicans into something here, they're dead wrong, and will accomplish nothing. The Republicans have the House. The entire thing was voted upon, and the Republicans have control of it, and squarely so. That is the will of the American People. And that means that the American People don't want you all to get anything done, that you can't get at least a significant number of Republicans to agree on in the House. That's the deal. And no strongarming, browbeating, guffawing, or whining is going to make it any different. We have an opportunity to come to the table and put our long-run fiscal issues in order. AND, if we do, not only will it shine well on both of our parties, for being able to reach across the aisle, and make a compromise, on an extremely important issue, but it will shine damn well on Democrats, because it will have happened under a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Senate. Time to get talking with Paul Ryan and John Boehner about ways to both reform entitlements and raise tax revenue while doing as little damage to economic growth (and thus job creation) as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I just cannot get over how one-sided the Republican party's concept of compromise has become. If I were one of the Democrats that tried to negotiated with the republicans for the past two years, I think I'd feel like Nevile Chamberlain right now. I got the impression that Republicans really thought they would sabotage every process in the government under the assumption that they would just enough power to do whatever they wanted after 2012, and that it turns out they are actually weaker than they were in 2010, they're throwing a temper tantrum and trying to run through their plan anyway. Unless Boehner and McConnel walk different from their talk when they get to the negotiating table, I will continue to have this impression.
    Boehner, by my reckoning, was willing to accept a plan with a ratio of $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue increases last year, during the debt ceiling debate, and, after having told Obama that he could go no further on revenue increases, that this $800B was as far as he could go, the President played a bait-and-switch on him, telling him that they needed more revenue increases, up to $1.2T, for $2.4T in cuts (a 2:1 ratio, as opposed to the previous [and optimal, imo] 3:1), on the last day of the negotiations, and, as a result, the deal collapsed.

    That's not an unwillingness to compromise on the part of Republicans.

    That's poor form by the President at a very bad time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Every Republican politician who's asking for everything to be done their way right now, that's calling the Democratic demands "unfair", strikes me as a selfish, ignorant, pussy. That's what I think. I expect the Democrats to take this election and push forward on the things they've been asking for in the past 2 years, and in doing that they're going to be a lot nicer than I would be
    Well, congratulations.

    You're not getting anything done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Thank you.

    I will read.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The last sentence is obvious to the degree of pointlessness.
    Yes, well, it contradicted what you'd said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You say that like a man with the facts on hand. So why don't you give us some comparative numbers?
    ...I will say that the limit you hit in eliminating the deductions and loopholes comes long before the limit you hit with raising tax rates.
    I don't have the exact facts on hand, but I will find the best information I can, and come back with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Those must be some really progressive capital gains taxes.
    I personally think, so long as corporate tax rates are brought down enough -- to somewhere between 0% and 10% -- that investment income should be taxed at the same rate as normal income; then, depending on how other things work out, it might make sense to tax all amounts under a certain level (say, $60,000) at 0%, to incentivize middle income Americans to save more.

  3. #133
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    Now we are getting somewhere interesting. How do we chart hipocrisy? Are there graphs? OMG PLEASE TELL ME THERE IS A VENN DIAGRAM!! (God, I love me some Venn Diagrams. Nothing solves a problem more than that. I have already decided that whomever I marry needs to ask me via Venn Diagram or I will be forced to say no.) Also, how do we define "nicer" and "more cooperative"? Are we employing the scientific method here? Is there a control group?
    Obviously I don't have a scientific measure on hand, but it doesn't then follow to equivocate everything. In terms of the behavior I've seen from the two parties in the legislator over the past decades, that's how it appears to me, in so far as Democrats are more likely to meet Republican demands than Republicans are to meet Democratic demands, and that Democratic demands tend to seem more modest in the first place. And so, from lower tax rates, to weaker welfare programs, to fewer business regulations, it seems like every aspect of the country has become more right wing. It's all Democrats playing to the Republican version of things.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  4. #134
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Obviously I don't have a scientific measure on hand, but it doesn't then follow to equivocate everything. In terms of the behavior I've seen from the two parties in the legislator over the past decades, that's how it appears to me, in so far as Democrats are more likely to meet Republican demands than Republicans are to meet Democratic demands, and that Democratic demands tend to seem more modest in the first place. And so, from lower tax rates, to weaker welfare programs, to fewer business regulations, it seems like every aspect of the country has become more right wing. It's all Democrats playing to the Republican version of things.
    I look for facts before opinion. If you have facts to represent this opinion, then by all means, dazzle me with their graphic glory.

    Until then I stand by the simple fact that both parties are made up of humans and humans are made up of both cells and self interest.

  5. #135
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    I look for facts before opinion. If you have facts to represent this opinion, then by all means, dazzle me with their graphic glory.

    Until then I stand by the simple fact that both parties are made up of humans and humans are made up of both cells and self interest.
    Facts before opinions? Then you're at the wrong place. To provide the evidence here would take a very lengthy study of the history of bills and the deals made in congress over the past 20 to 30 years. If you're actually curious about whether or not such a difference between the two parties exist and you want to see facts, I'd suggest you take the time to look it up yourself.

    I will say this. With no other evidence, it is very hard to know who's right and who's wrong, or which side to go with, maybe it's the Republicans, maybe it's the Democrats. I can tell you that the odds of both sides being completely equal are very low, just mathematically.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  6. #136
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I've already said elsewhere that I'm open to taxes on the middle class
    The fact of the matter is, without Paul Ryan's Plan going forward, it will be necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    ...that I want big cuts to the defense budget...
    I've read your views on this, and I'm not willing to make that deal.

    I'll take Leon Panetta's and Robert Gate's opinions on the matter as far more authoritative than yours.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62968.html
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72016.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-warns-...155826277.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1891829.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    ...and that a true national health system in place of Medicaid and Medicare would cut health care costs in half or perhaps down to about 60% of what they currently are.
    You sounds like a man with the facts at hand. Care to provide proof of this claim? And how about proof that care will not decline, and that medical innovation will not be slowed, and waiting times for specialists will not increase?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    So, low and behold, I'm not limiting my solutions to increasing taxes on the rich.
    Yes, you want to raise taxes on everybody...

    As for defense cuts, I don't believe we should have a weak military, as I believe you do. I believe in Peace through Strength, and that a strong American military is good for the world; and, thankfully, I can be confident the American People side with me on this issue. Our military spending as a % of GDP is already near historical lows, and I see no reason it must go that much further. Cap it at 5% of GDP? Fine. Try to get it down around 4ish%? Probably okay. But should be done gradually, and not by slashing the budget, but by growing the economy. All the way down to 3%? No, I think that's too much. And, I remind you, military spending has the highest Keynesian multiplier of all kinds of government spending (and, based on the studies I've seen, may now be the only type where it's actually greater than 1).

    As for our healthcare system, well, we've gone far enough rearranging that for the next decade or two. And, frankly, I think the logic behind it largely makes sense (just not the timing). We'll see what effects it has. Frankly, I hope they are positive. We probably need to continue making adjustments to it, though. And, if it gets the job done, I see no reason we must go further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Saying that increased taxes on the rich will fail to rid the earth of its ills is not a great argument against doing so.
    But saying that to do so so without meaningful entitlement reform is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The Democrats have simply been less hypocritical for a couple of decades. And, hypocritical or not, they've played nicer and been more cooperative. For this reason the USA's political spectrum as rapidly moved right since 1980, and to hear Republicans complaining about Democrats wanting it their was is just ridiculous.
    Saturned already dealt with this claim effectively.

  7. #137
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Cubans are hated by most Latinos for the same reason Argentinians are hated by most South Americans: they think they're superior to the others.



    I'm from Southern California, lived in Spain, am fluent in Spanish, my best friend since I was four is half-Mexican, half-Cuban, his mom, who is like my second mother, used to cross the border with her family regularly, and I've spent my entire life being extremely close to both sides of his Hispanic family, my idol when I was a kid, who later became my coach and confidante, was here from Mexico with his family illegally, and my mom taught for decades at a heavily Latino school, which I attended from kindergarten through second grade -- so, I'm very familiar with the culture.

    Please, entertain me.



    If you were a Republican, you'd be accused of calling Mexicans lazy.
    ????

    Wow

    Ok, first I'll respond to the second thing...:

    lol

    Ok, now I'll respond to the first thing. I can't speak for your experience Z, but you don't strike me as a racist I just don't think it's as -personal- for you just like there are certain things that you hold dear that I do not feel any kind of cultural tie to. I think the way the human brain builds its value structure is very complex. For example, ooh that tingles! It burns! ... BUT I LIKE IT?!?! When humans experience pain their brains release endorphins in order to help cope with it. After being exposed again and again over time we build up a resistance and seek higher and higher levels of stimulation. This is how we begin to enjoy spicier and spicier foods for example. What does this have to do with anything? I think culture is much the same. Cultures are not good or bad per se. Each culture has elements that are correlated to beneficial behavioral patterns and to detrimental ones. However, the same behavior is often interpreted differently by each culture based on that specific culture's history. It's about relationships. What does this mean? How does this person relate to me and my life? Does this harm me or someone I love? What is the relationship of this people group to me? For example, in America there is a resentment against British people who profess superiority to Americans in part because of the various wars between Britain and the United States. Similarly, there is resentment amongst Mexicans against America because of the Mexican-American war for example. There are many factors and so I do not know how to explain them all in part because I am not Mexican and so I do not identify with them and cannot explain them in the same manner that someone from Mexico might. For myself, my grandmother immigrated here legally and now because of age requires an oxygen tank to assist her breathing. If I had means to take care of her financially I would, but I do not. I see Republicans as wanting to take away social programs that I credit with keeping my grandmother alive. I'm sure many Republicans in the south feel that the additional tax burden is a strain on their own families resources and prevents them for adequately caring for their aging family members also. This is why politics is not an easy thing to come to agreement on.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  8. #138
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The fact of the matter is, without Paul Ryan's Plan going forward, it will be necessary.
    There could have been plenty of plans other than Ryan's that avoided raising taxes on the middle class. I still probably wouldn't like them, but there are others. His plan was a particularly bad one on account of having the nerve to actually cut taxes on top earners and containing no reduction in defense spending. It didn't even have very bold plans for welfare programs once his crazy ass privatization plans were eject (as they ought to have been).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I've read your views on this, and I'm not willing to make that deal.

    I'll take Leon Panetta's and Robert Gate's opinions on the matter as far more authoritative than yours.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62968.html
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72016.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-warns-...155826277.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1891829.html
    On one hand, these people should be experts. On the other hand, it is their obligation and their livelihood to tell everyone that we can't cut defense spending.
    The same opinions don't necessarily come from people who are interested in things other than global security, or even people who are but don't have those positions.

    I think the USA is enough of a stabilizer that if we had a civil war, war would probably break out all over the world. That is not, however, the same as requiring to maintain our defense budget as it currently is. In 2010 the defense budget was 20% of the federal budget (and that's if you count Social Security payments as part of the ordinary federal budget). If you're serious about a balanced budget, you have to put that on the table along with the health care costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You sounds like a man with the facts at hand. Care to provide proof of this claim? And how about proof that care will not decline, and that medical innovation will not be slowed, and waiting times for specialists will not increase?
    Well, for a question with that many points in it, have a look-see at this.

    There is an extrapolation on my part, which is that the results are so consistent in every other country that it would seem strange for them to be different in the USA. I have heard some arguments for why they might be, but I don't believe them because none of them truly distinguish the USA from every other UHC country nor do they really get to the bottom of the problem, which basically has two points. One is that the administrative costs of having several government programs and innumerable private plans are outrageous and can be amended by having one standard system. The other is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's cheaper to let people treat the beginning of a problem than to have us pay for it with a visit to the ER.

    There was an interesting study on how Oregon hands out health care coverage by lottery, and ultimately the people who get the coverage are less expensive than the people who don't. I'll see if I can dig it up again.

    In the mean time, here's a nice stash of reading on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yes, you want to raise taxes on everybody...
    I really don't see a need to raise them on the poor. And of course, even if I rise them on the lower middle class and up, the rates would still be very progressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As for defense cuts, I don't believe we should have a weak military, as I believe you do. I believe in Peace through Strength, and that a strong American military is good for the world; and, thankfully, I can be confident the American People side with me on this issue. Our military spending as a % of GDP is already near historical lows, and I see no reason it must go that much further. Cap it at 5% of GDP? Fine. Try to get it down around 4ish%? Probably okay. But should be done gradually, and not by slashing the budget, but by growing the economy. All the way down to 3%? No, I think that's too much. And, I remind you, military spending has the highest Keynesian multiplier of all kinds of government spending (and, based on the studies I've seen, may now be the only type where it's actually greater than 1).
    I go back to the point above. If you're someone that wants a balanced budget, lower taxes, and lots of defense spending, I think you're at cross purposes with yourself. It's like you want to create a triangle of things that can't work together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As for our healthcare system, well, we've gone far enough rearranging that for the next decade or two. And, frankly, I think the logic behind it largely makes sense (just not the timing). We'll see what effects it has. Frankly, I hope they are positive. We probably need to continue making adjustments to it, though. And, if it gets the job done, I see no reason we must go further.
    Back when ACA first passed, I was frustrated. Health care reform seemed like something that one commits to. It's like crossing a road. You stay on one side or make it all the way to the other, because the worst thing to do is stop right in the middle of it. I felt like what they now call "Obamacare" stopped in the middle of the road. It was a situation that would satisfy almost no one, and it still looks like I'm pretty much right about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But saying that to do so so without meaningful entitlement reform is.
    What I'm proposing about health care is entitlement reform.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  9. #139
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In 2010 the defense budget was 20% of the federal budget (and that's if you count Social Security payments as part of the ordinary federal budget). If you're serious about a balanced budget, you have to put that on the table along with the health care costs.
    I have already said I would, by limiting its growth.

    But spending on our military is already near historical lows.



    Even in the Ryan Plan the Defense Budget significantly decreases as a % of GDP.



    The difference is that Medicare spending is on an ever-increasing path, whereas military spending is not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It's cheaper to let people treat the beginning of a problem than to have us pay for it with a visit to the ER.
    Yes, well, Obamacare is supposed to fix this problem.

    We'll see how it does over the next 10-15 years, and then decide if we need to go further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I go back to the point above. If you're someone that wants a balanced budget, lower taxes, and lots of defense spending, I think you're at cross purposes with yourself. It's like you want to create a triangle of things that can't work together.
    I never said that I was looking for those three things.

    I've said I want:

    1. A balanced budget (deficit of <3% of GDP).
    2. Am willing to accept a 3:1 ratio of cuts in entitlements to revenue increases.
    3. Defense spending at ~4% of GDP (or ~3%, excluding costs for overseas contingency operations).

    None of those are even close to unreasonable, and, frankly, they are very middle of the road.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What I'm proposing about health care is entitlement reform.
    Neither of your two arguments for why it would bring down healthcare costs had anything to do with bringing down costs for the elderly.

    We need to end our blank check policy towards retirement healthcare costs, and the waver idea is a good step in that direction.

    I think we should also seriously look into means-testing both Social Security and Medicare.

  10. #140

    Default

    TL;DR (all of)
    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...101712#usgs302 <" Federal Budget Spending Estimates
    for Fiscal Years 2011 - 2016"

    http://pewresearch.org/databank/dail...?NumberID=1150 <"As the year 2011 began on Jan. 1, the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation celebrated their 65th birthday. In fact, on that day, today, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65."

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html <general census

    Maybe these numbers will help in your debate :]
    Dirt Farmer

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 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