Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama should give back his tax refundFollow

#102 Apr 21 2011 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
It's the basis of our laws,


No it's not; and hasn't been for 75 years(since the new deal). Politicians pass whatever laws they want and if they happen to have enough supporters on the scotus they tell us how the constitution is a "living and breathing" document as a justification.

H*ll you liberals put people on the scotus that actually cite europe as justification for their rulings.


So, you don't believe in the Constitution... and again it begs the question, why did you even pretend you did in order to present your argument? Smiley: wink
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#103varusword75, Posted: Apr 21 2011 at 12:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#104 Apr 21 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Politicians pass whatever laws they want
I feel dirty for agreeing, but I'm sure you'll find a way to ruin it soon.
varusword75 wrote:
I'm a constitutionalist. I believe in the constitution as it was written not some liberal judges warped interpretation of it.
There you go.

Edited, Apr 21st 2011 2:46pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 Apr 21 2011 at 12:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
So, you don't believe in the Constitution


Actually you're the one who doesn't believe in the constitution; which is why you can allow yourself to believe it's a "living document" to be changed at the whims of the politicians.

There is a Constitutional process for changing the document - it's called "amendment." You don't believe in the Bill of Rights? Smiley: oyvey Unless you're implying the founding fathers weren't correct in 1803 when judicial review was established in the courts through the interpretation of Article III of the Constitution.

Quote:
I'm a constitutionalist. I believe in the constitution as it was written not some liberal judges warped interpretation of it.

****, John Marshall was such a modern-day liberal Smiley: glare
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#106 Apr 21 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You are aware that when they wrote "general welfare" in the constitution,
That'd be a more compelling start of an argument if the constitution wasn't intended to be a living, changing document.


Yes. By amending it to change what it says, not by just pretending that it always meant something different because it's convenient for what you want to do. When you do the latter, you're basically saying that the document doesn't have any meaning at all. May as well just say "do whatever you want if you can get the votes".

Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
What is the republican plan for dealing with all of the people who depend on these programs? I'm not talking about the abusers of the programs, just the legit users. Just f*ck them?


The Republican plan is to not make so many people dependent on those programs in the first place. Do you understand that many social programs are self-fulfilling? We actually increase the number of people "in need" by creating programs to provide assistance for those conditions. And yes, I've heard the whole "but nobody would choose to be poor!" counter argument. It's not about people choosing to be poor, but that when you make that condition of poverty a bit less painful, you decrease the degree to which people work hard not to be poor. And that has a statistical effect on the resulting number of people who end out needing that assistance.


Like I said. It's self-fulfilling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Apr 21 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
So, you don't believe in the Constitution


Actually you're the one who doesn't believe in the constitution; which is why you can allow yourself to believe it's a "living document" to be changed at the whims of the politicians.

There is a Constitutional process for changing the document - it's called "amendment."


Yup. Now show me the amendment in the Constitution which changed the meaning of "general welfare" to mean that we can seize property from those who earned it, not to protect the remaining property from theft or war, but simply to provide it to others who did not earn "enough" for themselves? When did property rights, enshrined in original document, become something that only applies as long as no one else needs your stuff more than you do?


They didn't write an amendment to do that. They just argued that it should, but instead of changing the document, they gradually over time appointed enough judges who viewed the law their way to rule that it always meant that. Thus, they bypassed the process. When liberals speak of the constitution as a "living breathing document", they don't mean that it can be legislatively changed. They mean that it can be judicially re-interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean.


Which, as I stated earlier, effectively means that it doesn't mean anything at all. Some of us don't agree with that. We believe that there are principles enshrined in the constitution and that all interpretations of the constitution should take those principles into account. Lose sight of them, and you just have a piece of paper.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Apr 21 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:


Yup. Now show me the amendment in the Constitution which changed the meaning of "general welfare" to mean that we can seize property from those who earned it


I'm not sure to what context you are referring to with "seize property", but the fifth amendment covers eminent domain. If you are not talking about eminent domain, then I apologize.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#109 Apr 21 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:


Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
What is the republican plan for dealing with all of the people who depend on these programs? I'm not talking about the abusers of the programs, just the legit users. Just f*ck them?


The Republican plan is to not make so many people dependent on those programs in the first place. Do you understand that many social programs are self-fulfilling? We actually increase the number of people "in need" by creating programs to provide assistance for those conditions. And yes, I've heard the whole "but nobody would choose to be poor!" counter argument. It's not about people choosing to be poor, but that when you make that condition of poverty a bit less painful, you decrease the degree to which people work hard not to be poor. And that has a statistical effect on the resulting number of people who end out needing that assistance.


Like I said. It's self-fulfilling.


I see where you are going with this, and while these social programs* do cause some "self-fulfulling", not all of the people on them fall under this. The problem is the abusers of these programs and the problem with the abusers is that they are hard to detect without more personnel which would cost more money. The bigger problem in this country isn't the wars or the social programs, but the unwillingness of our two-party system to compromise and work together.

Democrats want to increase taxes, Republicans want to cut spending. What need to happen is a compromise between these two. I think cutting spending could be a permanent way to decrease the deficit and the debt over time, and raising taxes would be a temporary way to pay down the debt faster. But our government is failing to work together and as a result of that, is failing the American people.



*I'm not counting medicare or social security in this because people pay into them in good faith and should be entitled to them when the time comes. Of course this could change in the future, but these programs are a whole other mess.

Edited, Apr 21st 2011 6:06pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#110 Apr 21 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
The Republican plan is to not make so many people dependent on those programs in the first place. Do you understand that many social programs are self-fulfilling? We actually increase the number of people "in need" by creating programs to provide assistance for those conditions. And yes, I've heard the whole "but nobody would choose to be poor!" counter argument. It's not about people choosing to be poor, but that when you make that condition of poverty a bit less painful, you decrease the degree to which people work hard not to be poor. And that has a statistical effect on the resulting number of people who end out needing that assistance.


That's not actually a plan. WHAT is this magical "plan"?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#111 Apr 21 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
gbaji wrote:


Yup. Now show me the amendment in the Constitution which changed the meaning of "general welfare" to mean that we can seize property from those who earned it


I'm not sure to what context you are referring to with "seize property", but the fifth amendment covers eminent domain. If you are not talking about eminent domain, then I apologize.


I was speaking of Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, since that's where the whole "general welfare" phrase comes in:

US Constitution wrote:

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, ********* dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


While the list is not intended (nor interpreted) to be an enumeration of all the things Congress can do, with all others prohibited. It is clearly intended to be a guideline of the types of things the writers of the constitution felt the government should be doing. While there are lots of examples of protecting us from foreign invasion and internal rebellion, protecting the currency, creating roads and otherwise promoting commerce and communication, there is absolutely zero mention of "provide food for the poor" in there, or anything even remotely similar.


But since you mentioned the 5th amendment, it does sorta touch on this issue:

5th amendment wrote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Now this is more specific to the idea of having property taken via either criminal proceedings or eminent domain, but the principle is pretty clear, especially that last part. We're not supposed to have property (which includes income btw) taken from us for "public use" without just compensation. Now, in most of the examples given in the list from Section 8, the public use is also a "common use". Everyone benefits from roads, postal services, defense of borders, protection of currency, etc.


Taking money from one person purely because he has it, and giving it to another purely because he doesn't is so far outside the bounds of what is written that it's laughable. Somehow we've managed to stretch and twist and bend the rules until most people think that it's not just normal to do so, but to fail to do so is somehow a violation of rights "owed" to the people.

It clearly was not intended to be interpreted that way, and they clearly intended private property to be protected from public seizure and allowed only for things that benefit all in common. There is simply no way to justify direct individual assistance from the federal government using public moneys under the constitution as it was written. There's nothing that even hints at such a thing being expected much less required, and quite a few references which strongly suggest that they were opposed to the idea entirely.


So yeah. I think it's relevant to ask where the amendment that says that our property rights end when the government decides that someone else needs our property more than we do. Doesn't that effectively mean we don't have any rights anymore? What if someone else "needs" all of what I have? Can you justify taking some of my property for this reason but not all of it? And if you can't draw a clear dividing line, then isn't the principle you're operating on incredibly dangerous?

Edited, Apr 21st 2011 3:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Apr 21 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Seize property words


Ah, ok, you weren't talking about property (land). I didn't think you were, but I wasn't sure.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#113 Apr 21 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I see where you are going with this, and while these social programs* do cause some "self-fulfulling", not all of the people on them fall under this. The problem is the abusers of these programs and the problem with the abusers is that they are hard to detect without more personnel which would cost more money.


Which is precisely why we should not be doing it in the first place. Allow private charities to provide help for the truly needy. They tend to be much much better at weeding out the abusers, and those organizations which aren't tend to start losing their donations to those who do. When you've got one federal government and you don't willingly donate the money, nor have much control over where it's spent, that contributes significantly to the amount of abuse and fraud which occurs. This is why I've been saying repeatedly that the solution is to get the government out of the charity business.

Do that, and private citizens will have that money back to donate to the charities they choose. And that money will be much better spent helping the needy than it is right now.


Quote:
Democrats want to increase taxes, Republicans want to cut spending.


More correctly, Democrats want to increase spending, while Republicans want to cut taxes. They're obviously linked, but it's important to first note what the "goals" of each party are and realize the the current situation is a reaction to prior actions.

Quote:
What need to happen is a compromise between these two. I think cutting spending could be a permanent way to decrease the deficit and the debt over time, and raising taxes would be a temporary way to pay down the debt faster.


Ok. But look at the goals I wrote above. The Democrats want to increase spending. That is their goal. They achieved that by increasing spending over the last couple years. But as a result of that, we are running massive deficits. What you call "compromise" is really just demanding that the GOP give up their goal to allow the Democrats to achieve theirs. They get to spend more, while taxes go up.

Stop and think about it. Start at a status quo prior to this crisis. If the Democrats increase spending by say $500B/year, creating a deficit problem, but then offer to compromise with the GOP by paying off that deficit by raising taxes by $250B/year and cutting spending by the same amount, haven't we just let them increase spending by $250B/year while the GOP paid for it by losing ground on their goal by the same amount? That's not "fair", and that's not a compromise.


And if you think that the compromise the Dems want is anything close to a 50/50 split on spending and taxes, you are pretty darn naive. As you say, raising taxes is the quickest way to fix the problem. So they'll propose raising taxes "just for awhile" to pay down the deficit, with some token spending cuts to show that they're compromising with more cuts promised for later. But when the economy recovers, the impetus to cut spending will disappear as will the public will in the face of all those "poor people who'll be hurt if we cut these necessary programs". The cuts wont happen. The taxes will become permanent, and the "compromise" will be forgotten.


And the next time we're in a similar position, they'll do it again.

Quote:
But our government is failing to work together and as a result of that, is failing the American people.


Working together should not be synonymous with "we get what we want and you get screwed". I mean, where were the Dems saying we should "work together" when they pushed through all those partisan spending bills in 2009 and 2010? Should not the nearly 100% GOP objection to those things have suggested that they weren't working together then? Yet, somehow we're supposed to forget the whole "not working together" during which all that spending was done and only work together now that the bill has come due? So Dems don't have to work or compromise with the GOP when making spending decisions, but the GOP has to work and compromise with the Dems now?

And that's fair, how exactly?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Apr 21 2011 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seize property words


Ah, ok, you weren't talking about property (land). I didn't think you were, but I wasn't sure.


Property is everything you own, not just land.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Apr 21 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Quote:
The Republican plan is to not make so many people dependent on those programs in the first place. Do you understand that many social programs are self-fulfilling? We actually increase the number of people "in need" by creating programs to provide assistance for those conditions. And yes, I've heard the whole "but nobody would choose to be poor!" counter argument. It's not about people choosing to be poor, but that when you make that condition of poverty a bit less painful, you decrease the degree to which people work hard not to be poor. And that has a statistical effect on the resulting number of people who end out needing that assistance.


That's not actually a plan. WHAT is this magical "plan"?


Of course it's a plan. You've just adopted the assumption that any "plan" must include the government spending money and "doing something", so you can't wrap your head around the idea of *not* spending money as a viable alternative.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Apr 21 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
No, that's an objective. A plan lays out steps on how you're going to achieve said goal/objective.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#117 Apr 21 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I see where you are going with this, and while these social programs* do cause some "self-fulfulling", not all of the people on them fall under this. The problem is the abusers of these programs and the problem with the abusers is that they are hard to detect without more personnel which would cost more money.


Which is precisely why we should not be doing it in the first place. Allow private charities to provide help for the truly needy. They tend to be much much better at weeding out the abusers, and those organizations which aren't tend to start losing their donations to those who do. When you've got one federal government and you don't willingly donate the money, nor have much control over where it's spent, that contributes significantly to the amount of abuse and fraud which occurs. This is why I've been saying repeatedly that the solution is to get the government out of the charity business.

Do that, and private citizens will have that money back to donate to the charities they choose. And that money will be much better spent helping the needy than it is right now.


Quote:
Democrats want to increase taxes, Republicans want to cut spending.


More correctly, Democrats want to increase spending, while Republicans want to cut taxes. They're obviously linked, but it's important to first note what the "goals" of each party are and realize the the current situation is a reaction to prior actions.

Quote:
What need to happen is a compromise between these two. I think cutting spending could be a permanent way to decrease the deficit and the debt over time, and raising taxes would be a temporary way to pay down the debt faster.


Ok. But look at the goals I wrote above. The Democrats want to increase spending. That is their goal. They achieved that by increasing spending over the last couple years. But as a result of that, we are running massive deficits. What you call "compromise" is really just demanding that the GOP give up their goal to allow the Democrats to achieve theirs. They get to spend more, while taxes go up.

Stop and think about it. Start at a status quo prior to this crisis. If the Democrats increase spending by say $500B/year, creating a deficit problem, but then offer to compromise with the GOP by paying off that deficit by raising taxes by $250B/year and cutting spending by the same amount, haven't we just let them increase spending by $250B/year while the GOP paid for it by losing ground on their goal by the same amount? That's not "fair", and that's not a compromise.


And if you think that the compromise the Dems want is anything close to a 50/50 split on spending and taxes, you are pretty darn naive. As you say, raising taxes is the quickest way to fix the problem. So they'll propose raising taxes "just for awhile" to pay down the deficit, with some token spending cuts to show that they're compromising with more cuts promised for later. But when the economy recovers, the impetus to cut spending will disappear as will the public will in the face of all those "poor people who'll be hurt if we cut these necessary programs". The cuts wont happen. The taxes will become permanent, and the "compromise" will be forgotten.


And the next time we're in a similar position, they'll do it again.

Quote:
But our government is failing to work together and as a result of that, is failing the American people.


Working together should not be synonymous with "we get what we want and you get screwed". I mean, where were the Dems saying we should "work together" when they pushed through all those partisan spending bills in 2009 and 2010? Should not the nearly 100% GOP objection to those things have suggested that they weren't working together then? Yet, somehow we're supposed to forget the whole "not working together" during which all that spending was done and only work together now that the bill has come due? So Dems don't have to work or compromise with the GOP when making spending decisions, but the GOP has to work and compromise with the Dems now?

And that's fair, how exactly?


I think you're assuming that I'm a democrat, no where did I say we need to do what the democrats want. I said we need to work together to solve this problem (decrease spending permanently and increase taxes temporarily). I certainly didn't say we need to increase spending and increase taxes. Obviously increasing spending at this point would be a mistake.



____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#118 Apr 21 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seize property words


Ah, ok, you weren't talking about property (land). I didn't think you were, but I wasn't sure.


Property is everything you own, not just land.


Yes, I just took it out of context to mean land specifically.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#119 Apr 21 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
No, that's an objective. A plan lays out steps on how you're going to achieve said goal/objective.


Um... Cut spending on those programs? We could look at the Ryan plan if you want, or any of a number of other similar plans put forth by Republicans. Or we could at least acknowledge that had the Dems not outvoted the GOP in congress when all this spending occurred, we wouldn't be in this mess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Apr 21 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Quote:
The Republican plan is to not make so many people dependent on those programs in the first place. Do you understand that many social programs are self-fulfilling? We actually increase the number of people "in need" by creating programs to provide assistance for those conditions. And yes, I've heard the whole "but nobody would choose to be poor!" counter argument. It's not about people choosing to be poor, but that when you make that condition of poverty a bit less painful, you decrease the degree to which people work hard not to be poor. And that has a statistical effect on the resulting number of people who end out needing that assistance.


That's not actually a plan. WHAT is this magical "plan"?


Of course it's a plan. You've just adopted the assumption that any "plan" must include the government spending money and "doing something", so you can't wrap your head around the idea of *not* spending money as a viable alternative.


That made me laugh hard at it's sheer stupidity, thanks!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#121 Apr 21 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I think you're assuming that I'm a democrat, no where did I say we need to do what the democrats want.


Of course you did. When you say "compromise" and "work together", and then follow that up with a suggestion that we bot cut spending *and* raise taxes to solve the current debt crisis, you are saying we need to do what the Democrats want. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or not. You are supporting their agenda by repeating their talking points.

Quote:
I said we need to work together to solve this problem (decrease spending permanently and increase taxes temporarily). I certainly didn't say we need to increase spending and increase taxes.


But we already increased spending. That's why we're in a debt crisis right now. So when you propose raising taxes as a "solution" to the spending we did over the last two years, you are in fact supporting an agenda of "increasing both spending and taxing". You're just conveniently ignoring the fact that we increased spending first, created a debt crisis, and are now proposing tax increases to pay for it.


Quote:
Obviously increasing spending at this point would be a mistake.


It should be equally obvious that increased spending over the last two years was a mistake. Yet they did it anyway. When you ignore that, you are doing exactly what they intended you to do from the beginning. If You'd like, I'll see if I can pull up a quote from a thread a couple years ago where I predicted exactly what is happening now.

Some of us saw this coming and knew that the reason the Dems were spending so recklessly was because they knew that they could convince people after the fact that tax cuts would be needed to fix the crisis they caused. So when you write what you are writing, it both saddens me at how gullible some people are and confirms just what I suspected would happen all along. It sucks to be right sometimes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Apr 21 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
Not paranoid at all, boss.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#123 Apr 21 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
So Gbaji, all should be done by private charities. You really think that people will give all that much more than they do now to charities? What happens when they private charities just can't keep up? How do you keep those charities from discriminating (assuming you want to get rid of those horrible govt agencies that monitor that)?

Let's face it Gbaji, the Republican plan is ********** the poor".
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#124 Apr 21 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Republicans ran up massive deficits via unfunded wars, unfunded entitlement programs, unfunded tax cuts and unfunded stimulus programs in an intentional bid to recklessly drive the nation to the brink of bankruptcy purely so they could then hack away at social programs for purely ideological reasons, thus threatening the very existence of this nation to fulfill a purely political desire. This was always their plan.

I just said it so it must be true.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Apr 21 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Lol. Here's an intersting thread:

gbaji wrote:

I'll point out that the Liberals do this in reverse. They don't start with tax cuts. You never hear them campaign on a "raising taxes" agenda. They campaign on all the neato things they're going to do with government. New programs to help the poor, feed the hungry, etc... Of course, after they get approval for those things (remember. That's "easy"), then they've created a "need" to raise taxes (cause otherwise we'll increase debt, right?).

It goes both ways. But in both cases, you have to create a gap between what you are taxing and what you are spending in order to push for a change in the direction you really want to go. Fiscal Conservatives will cut taxes first, and then hope that this is followed by a decrease in spending. Fiscal Liberals will increase spending first, and hope that this is followed by an increase in taxes.


and...

gbaji wrote:

Let me also point out that the situation he's talking about is *not* the same as what Reagan and Bush did. He's talking about a government that introduces a massive spending increase without raising taxes, incurring large amounts of debt, and then later paying off that debt by raising taxes.

That's the process that Liberals use (as I mentioned earlier). They increase spending, raising debt. Then insist that taxes be increased in order to "balance the budget". Burke is specifically addressing the innate wrongness of that process.



and...

gbaji wrote:

It takes time, but it's the right way to do things. You have to have a stable economic condition that maintains a level of taxes and a level of debt. What Dems tend to prefer are "quick fixes". The problem with those is that you're not establishing government spending/taxing habits. Quite the opposite, you just encourage more spending growth. Sure. We could raise taxes for the next ten years to pay off all our debt. Great. But what do you think will happen then? Do you really think that they'll lower taxes back again? Or do you think that as the debt gets paid off, the government will simply find other uses for the extra money?

I suspect the latter. As should most sane people. There are no quick fixes, and raising taxes to pay off debt ultimately hurts you more then it helps. The correlative statement is therefore true as well. Lowering taxes, even if it raises debt will ultimately help you more then it hurts you. As long as the interest on the debt isn't increasing faster then the economic gains from lowering the taxes that is. But that's why you do this layered "step" process. Big drop. Then gradual rise back, but not quite to the same level as before. Rinse repeat. It works. Well. It works until the Dems come along with another huge spending bill that is...



It's like I'm freaking psychic or something! And that's just in one thread. And in that thread, we weren't even talking about Obama, or economic meltdowns, or anything else. Just a general discussion of how the two "sides" deal with deficits and taxes and spending. But in it, I pretty much predicted exactly what the Dems would do once they had sufficient political power to do it. Rack up spending to the point of crisis, then insist that the only way to fix the problem is with higher taxes. Shocking, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Apr 21 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I think you're assuming that I'm a democrat, no where did I say we need to do what the democrats want.


Of course you did. When you say "compromise" and "work together", and then follow that up with a suggestion that we bot cut spending *and* raise taxes to solve the current debt crisis, you are saying we need to do what the Democrats want. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or not. You are supporting their agenda by repeating their talking points.

Quote:
I said we need to work together to solve this problem (decrease spending permanently and increase taxes temporarily). I certainly didn't say we need to increase spending and increase taxes.


But we already increased spending. That's why we're in a debt crisis right now. So when you propose raising taxes as a "solution" to the spending we did over the last two years, you are in fact supporting an agenda of "increasing both spending and taxing". You're just conveniently ignoring the fact that we increased spending first, created a debt crisis, and are now proposing tax increases to pay for it.


Quote:
Obviously increasing spending at this point would be a mistake.


It should be equally obvious that increased spending over the last two years was a mistake. Yet they did it anyway. When you ignore that, you are doing exactly what they intended you to do from the beginning. If You'd like, I'll see if I can pull up a quote from a thread a couple years ago where I predicted exactly what is happening now.

Some of us saw this coming and knew that the reason the Dems were spending so recklessly was because they knew that they could convince people after the fact that tax cuts would be needed to fix the crisis they caused. So when you write what you are writing, it both saddens me at how gullible some people are and confirms just what I suspected would happen all along. It sucks to be right sometimes.


You are very good at selective reading. I said decrease spending and increase taxes, you read increase spending and increase taxes.

I don't mean that we should actually just increase taxes and not really decrease spending, I am saying that we should literally compromise between what the two parties want. You don't want compromise, that is fine.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#127 Apr 21 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Technogeek wrote:
So Gbaji, all should be done by private charities. You really think that people will give all that much more than they do now to charities?


Remember. Those people would get all that money that's currently being spent on charity via the government back. Even if only a fraction of that money were donated to charity, it would likely have more direct benefit to those actually in need than how that money is being spent by the government.


Quote:
What happens when they private charities just can't keep up?


They focus on the truly needy and actually work to help people get out of poverty rather than working hard to do the opposite. The same money exists on either side of the equation. It's not about having it or not having it. It's about whether you actually believe that the government is better at doing charity than private organizations are. The answer should be pretty clear.


Quote:
How do you keep those charities from discriminating (assuming you want to get rid of those horrible govt agencies that monitor that)?


How many private charities do you see discriminating on any grounds other than need today? You raise a problem that doesn't exist to argue against fixing a problem that does. Isn't that a bit strange?

Quote:
Let's face it Gbaji, the Republican plan is "@#%^ the poor".


No. The Republican plan does not include using the poor as a political weapon. And it also has the virtues of focusing aid on those who actually need it, and encouraging those who don't to become productive citizens rather than simply gaming the system. It doesn't hurt the actual poor at all. It hurts those who gain political power on the backs of the poor. And they don't like that one bit!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Apr 21 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's like I'm freaking psychic or something!

Oh, sure. I'm assuming your little puppet-masters have been feeding you that excuse for years as they starved the beast to bring economic collapse. "It'll all be the Democrats' fault, honest!"

Yupyup, eat it up!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Apr 21 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:

It takes time, but it's the right way to do things. You have to have a stable economic condition that maintains a level of taxes and a level of debt. What Dems tend to prefer are "quick fixes". The problem with those is that you're not establishing government spending/taxing habits. Quite the opposite, you just encourage more spending growth. Sure. We could raise taxes for the next ten years to pay off all our debt. Great. But what do you think will happen then? Do you really think that they'll lower taxes back again? Or do you think that as the debt gets paid off, the government will simply find other uses for the extra money?


What about the reverse of that? Ok, so the dems want to raise taxes "temporarily" and that is bad because they probably won't end up being temporary after all. But the republicans DID lower taxes temporarily, but keeping that permanent is ok?

New plan, we cut spending and don't raise taxes, but we let the temporary tax cuts expire...no? Don't want that either?

Ok, let's cut a sh*tload of spending, lower taxes even more and just deal with more homeless people (fu*ck em, they smell).
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#130 Apr 21 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I certainly didn't say we need to increase spending and increase taxes.


But we already increased spending. That's why we're in a debt crisis right now. So when you propose raising taxes as a "solution" to the spending we did over the last two years, you are in fact supporting an agenda of "increasing both spending and taxing". You're just conveniently ignoring the fact that we increased spending first, created a debt crisis, and are now proposing tax increases to pay for it.



Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
You are very good at selective reading. I said decrease spending and increase taxes, you read increase spending and increase taxes.


I read exactly what you wrote. My point is that you claim that you are *not* advocating simply increasing spending and increasing taxes, but since the reason we're in this debt crisis is because of increased spending, when you propose raising taxes to any degree to fix the current problem, you are, in fact arguing in support of a policy of increased spending and increased taxes.

Quote:
I don't mean that we should actually just increase taxes and not really decrease spending, I am saying that we should literally compromise between what the two parties want. You don't want compromise, that is fine.


Ok. I suspect you're just not getting what I'm saying. If we don't decrease spending to levels equal to or lower than they were 3 years ago, then the next effect is to "increase spending and increase taxes". I don't see how you missed this. I even gave you a specific example and showed how increasing spending by $500B/year then "compromising" by decreasing spending by $250B/year and raising taxes by $250B in order to balance the deficit has the net effect of increasing both spending and taxes by $250B/year.


You can do math, right?

Edited, Apr 21st 2011 4:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Apr 21 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,978 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
So, you don't believe in the Constitution


Actually you're the one who doesn't believe in the constitution; which is why you can allow yourself to believe it's a "living document" to be changed at the whims of the politicians.

I'm a constitutionalist. I believe in the constitution as it was written not some liberal judges warped interpretation of it.

So you're okay with living by a document written by some dead guys in a world that does not exist as such anymore?

That's what "living document" means. It means they acknowledged that society, and the world at large changes, and the rules we live by need to evolve in accordance. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, since you also insist on living by an even older set of codes, from a different part of the world, written by people with little in common with today's society.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#132 Apr 21 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
[

I read exactly what you wrote. My point is that you claim that you are *not* advocating simply increasing spending and increasing taxes, but since the reason we're in this debt crisis is because of increased spending, when you propose raising taxes to any degree to fix the current problem, you are, in fact arguing in support of a policy of increased spending and increased taxes.


I'm not personally proposing raising taxes. What I am saying is that the democrats and the republicans want two different things. They can do one of two things:

1. Not compromise and gridlock so nothing passes.
2. Compromise and pass something

You should support raising taxes...if you think about it, what happens when a politician raises taxes? They get voted out in the next election. So if the dems raise taxes, then you get more republicans next time!
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#133 Apr 21 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
What about the reverse of that? Ok, so the dems want to raise taxes "temporarily" and that is bad because they probably won't end up being temporary after all. But the republicans DID lower taxes temporarily, but keeping that permanent is ok?


Two points:

1. The lowering of taxes didn't cause a debt crisis. As I pointed out in that thread, and have pointed out numerous times (including recently), debt as a percentage of GDP leveled out consistently in the mid 30% range during Bush's administration. We were not going further into debt as a result of his policies. Those rates were sustainable. I can show you the figures if you really want (or look them up in whatever recent thread I posted them in. I honestly can't remember).

2. I'm a fiscal conservative. I believe in smaller government. So to me, the "goal" of gradually stepping tax rates down, cutting spending to match and then repeating the process is a good thing. My point to this is that I'm honest about what I support in terms of fiscal policy and why. That's pretty strongly contrasted by the lengths to which most people will insist that there is no agenda to do the opposite on the part of liberals, even while they allow exactly the opposite process to happen without complaint.


I'm trying to get people to see that both sides do this. But which is better? The side which uses deficit as a lever to gradually decrease both taxes and spending? Or the side which uses deficit as a lever to increase both taxes and spending? It's interesting because when I present it that way, almost no one will ever grab hold of the latter "side", embrace it, and proudly proclaim that this is what they want. Most people will insist that it isn't what they want. And yet, they support an agenda that does exactly this. Which begs the question: Are those people lying when they say they don't want higher taxes and more spending? Or are they just incredibly gullible fools? Or, just to avoid being accused of a false dilemma fallacy, is there some third option here? I don't see it, but I'm willing to allow those who argue in favor of the Dem agenda to provide an explanation for what they are doing.

Quote:
New plan, we cut spending and don't raise taxes, but we let the temporary tax cuts expire...no? Don't want that either?


It's better than some alternatives, but ideally we shouldn't have to give up the sustainable tax and spending rates which we had prior to the Dems taking power in 2008. I've already argued at length with hard budget data showing that our current debt crisis isn't because of a change in the tax rates. So why is the solution to let them expire? Isn't that strange? I'd think we should be reversing whatever we did to get us here, not blaming the problem on something unrelated.

Quote:
Ok, let's cut a sh*tload of spending, lower taxes even more and just deal with more homeless people (fu*ck em, they smell).


Let cut spending back to 2008 levels first. Then lets let the economy recover (and there'll be fewer people in need then too). Then we'll talk about lowering taxes some more. Gradual steps, remember? The more important thing to be aware of is what direction we're taking steps towards. Do you want more spending and taxes, or less spending and taxes? Over time, those two always go together, so one means the other. Shouldn't we at least have honest dialog about this instead of what seems to be a big fat lie by one side?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Apr 21 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I think you're assuming that I'm a democrat, no where did I say we need to do what the democrats want. I said we need to work together to solve this problem (decrease spending permanently and increase taxes temporarily). I certainly didn't say we need to increase spending and increase taxes. Obviously increasing spending at this point would be a mistake.


Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I'm not personally proposing raising taxes.


Really?


Quote:
What I am saying is that the democrats and the republicans want two different things. They can do one of two things:

1. Not compromise and gridlock so nothing passes.
2. Compromise and pass something


So there is no option other than to do what the Dems want? But you don't support their agenda, you just happen to think there's no other alternative! Has it occurred to you that the reason they spent so much even in the midst of a falling economy was precisely so that people like you would assume there was no option but to raise taxes?

Quote:
You should support raising taxes...if you think about it, what happens when a politician raises taxes? They get voted out in the next election. So if the dems raise taxes, then you get more republicans next time!


But if the GOP does what you say and compromises by raising taxes, then doesn't that let the Dems off the hook? Now both parties raised taxes in bi-partisan agreement. One might even suspect that's exactly why the Dems are pushing for such a bi-partisan compromise in the first place! I'll repeat my earlier question: Are you aware of the deceptiveness of all of this, or are you just incredibly gullible?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Apr 21 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
So, you don't believe in the Constitution


Actually you're the one who doesn't believe in the constitution; which is why you can allow yourself to believe it's a "living document" to be changed at the whims of the politicians.

There is a Constitutional process for changing the document - it's called "amendment."


Yup. Now show me the amendment in the Constitution which changed the meaning of "general welfare" to mean that we can seize property from those who earned it, not to protect the remaining property from theft or war, but simply to provide it to others who did not earn "enough" for themselves? When did property rights, enshrined in original document, become something that only applies as long as no one else needs your stuff more than you do?

Yeah... I'm glad you can selectively cut out my entire point about "judicial review." It seems that you, quite like Varus, disagree with the concept. Why else would you ignore it and pretend I didn't reference John Marshall or Marbury v. Madison?

gbaji, do you disagree with judicial review, the principle upon which the Supreme Court has based its opinions for the last 200+ years?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#136 Apr 21 2011 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
debt as a percentage of GDP leveled out consistently in the mid 30% range during Bush's administration.

Only due to Bush riding a bubble economy while enacting billions upon billions (**** , well over a trillion) dollars in new spending programs and slashing taxes with absolutely no attempt to lower spending to cover it.

Once the bubble broke and it was apparent that Bush had done nothing to build a real sustainable economy for America, it became all too obvious what a sham his policies were and Republicans crowed that this crisis could only be solved by carving out programs for purely ideological reasons.

Just as they planned.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Apr 21 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'd think we should be reversing whatever we did to get us here, not blaming the problem on something unrelated.

[quote]


It seems that both sides have the same end game in mind, but how to get there is vastly different. This is exactly why I think they could find a good compromise if they really tried. I'm talking about truly working together, not the political rhetoric version. Of course that's probably never going to happen in a divided congress. Good or bad, when one party controls everything at least sh*t gets done.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#138 Apr 21 2011 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I think you're assuming that I'm a democrat, no where did I say we need to do what the democrats want. I said we need to work together to solve this problem (decrease spending permanently and increase taxes temporarily). I certainly didn't say we need to increase spending and increase taxes. Obviously increasing spending at this point would be a mistake.


Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I'm not personally proposing raising taxes.


Really?



Yes, I said that. What I meant was that I'm not a politician proposing a bill. Good one though.

gbaji wrote:



So there is no option other than to do what the Dems want? But you don't support their agenda, you just happen to think there's no other alternative! Has it occurred to you that the reason they spent so much even in the midst of a falling economy was precisely so that people like you would assume there was no option but to raise taxes?





Yes, there is another option...the one I said (compromise).

Also, they had to spend so much to fix this craphole economy they inherited. See Jophiel's post above.

You use a lot of words and proper grammar so you come off smart, I see the man behind the curtain now.

Edited, Apr 21st 2011 8:33pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#139 Apr 21 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,100 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
So, you don't believe in the Constitution


Actually you're the one who doesn't believe in the constitution; which is why you can allow yourself to believe it's a "living document" to be changed at the whims of the politicians.

There is a Constitutional process for changing the document - it's called "amendment."


Yup. Now show me the amendment in the Constitution which changed the meaning of "general welfare" to mean that we can seize property from those who earned it, not to protect the remaining property from theft or war, but simply to provide it to others who did not earn "enough" for themselves? When did property rights, enshrined in original document, become something that only applies as long as no one else needs your stuff more than you do?


You know what? This argument is f*cking stupid. The sixteenth amendment to the constitution clearly states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Nowhere in the constitution does it say what can and cannot be done with that revenue. If you don't like what your tax money is being spent on you're free to vote for someone that will spend it more to your liking.


Edited, Apr 21st 2011 8:50pm by Turin
#140 Apr 21 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
debt as a percentage of GDP leveled out consistently in the mid 30% range during Bush's administration.

Only due to Bush riding a bubble economy while enacting billions upon billions (**** , well over a trillion) dollars in new spending programs and slashing taxes with absolutely no attempt to lower spending to cover it.


The numbers don't support this claim. They do support the claim that even without making any attempt to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts, the resulting debt was not only sustainable but was decreasing. In Short, Bush was right that by cutting tax rates, we'd increase investment in private business, and revenues would come back up as a result of that increase. And I can only imagine that the nearly blind insistence that this isn't true in spite of data to the contrary is purely because the left just can't bring themselves to admit that he was right about anything, let alone something which so completely showed that their own economic ideology is flawed.

But hey. You continue to quote the talking points and I'll continue to provide actual data showing that you're wrong.

Quote:
Once the bubble broke and it was apparent that Bush had done nothing to build a real sustainable economy for America, it became all too obvious what a sham his policies were and Republicans crowed that this crisis could only be solved by carving out programs for purely ideological reasons.


Even if we assume that every single dollar of revenue loss since 2008 was a direct result of that bubble collapsing (and if you remember your pretty chart from last week, we both know that's not true), that still only explains $400B/year in deficit. So how do we go from $160B/year deficit to $1.2T/year deficit if it was all the fault of Bush's "bubble" collapsing, when the total loss of revenue was less than half of the difference?

I'll toss the numbers out again:

$160B/year deficit to $1.2T/year deficit = $1040B/year difference, broken down the following ways:

$140B/year is increased military spending
$400B/year is decreased revenue
$500B/year is increased social spending



Um... And in case you're not remembering from last week, the pretty graph which showed the stimulus spending and you thought it was such an important point to show how much of it (about 1/3rd or more for 2009 and 2010) was in the form of "tax cuts". But as I've pointed out before, this was really spending increases labeled as tax cuts (or "tax credits"). So some of that spending was laundered through the tax code and therefore shows up as a loss of revenue instead of an increase in spending.

And when we account for those numbers in 2009/2010, what we see is that revenue didn't drop that much at all. So I'm curious how you assume that it was the bubble that caused all this? Even ignoring the whole tax credit BS in the stimulus bill, the bubble can only be said to be responsible for about 1/3rd of the total deficit. But you're claiming that it's all to blame? Yeah. Right!


The bubble created a temporary loss of revenue and risk to the financial industry. This required government intervention. Unfortunately, the Dems took control of the government right about the same time, so they used that need for intervention to justify massive spending increases having nothing to do with addressing the real economic crisis. As a result, they created a second crisis more harmful than the first. And that's exactly what they intended from the start. There's no other explanation for why you'd be looking at a drop in revenue, and failing financial industry and think that's a great time to increase social spending by several hundred billion dollars a year. It's about pushing the deficit so far that they hope there'll be no choice but to raise taxes. That way they get to keep most of their spending.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Apr 21 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
gbaji wrote:
Unfortunately, the Dems took control of the government right about the same time
How convenient.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Apr 21 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Turin wrote:
Nowhere in the constitution does it say what can and cannot be done with that revenue.


Except for that whole section I quoted which listed off what Congress is empowered to do. Even assuming that's not an exclusive list, there's nothing on there which suggests something like "provide poor people with housing and food" is among Congress' duties.

And the 16th amendment only modified an earlier portion of the constitution which limited taxation methodology. It does not eliminate the prohibition against the idea of taking property without compensation. All other uses of tax dollars listed in Section 8 are "common use" of public money. The concept of taking taxes from someone because they can afford to pay more with the specific intention of handing that money to someone else who doesn't have as much is certainly in violation of the principles at work within the constitution.

Quote:
If you don't like what your tax money is being spent on you're free to vote for someone that will spend it more to your liking.


I'd rather vote for someone who is going to spend (and tax) less of it in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Apr 21 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unfortunately, the Dems took control of the government right about the same time
How convenient.


Oh good, it was the dems fault after all.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#144 Apr 21 2011 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:

Yes, I said that. What I meant was that I'm not a politician proposing a bill. Good one though.


That has to be the most lame backpedal I've ever seen on this forum. I don't think anyone thought you were proposing legislation to the house floor or anything, but you are clearly "proposing" a solution on this forum. Which, given that we're on this forum, would seem to be relevant enough for you to take responsibility for. Don't you agree?

Or are you arguing that nothing you say really matters because you aren't personally going to be doing anything about it? One might wonder why you bother posting then?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
So there is no option other than to do what the Dems want? But you don't support their agenda, you just happen to think there's no other alternative! Has it occurred to you that the reason they spent so much even in the midst of a falling economy was precisely so that people like you would assume there was no option but to raise taxes?


Yes, there is another option...the one I said (compromise).


That's not "another option" That's the one you proposed (to the forum!), and which the Dems want. Please tell me you understand that the Democrats want a "compromise" which results in a temporary tax increase and small immediate cuts to pay for the current crisis so that they can push the big spending cuts to another day when there isn't a crisis and the public has become more dependent on new spending and will thus be less inclined to swap those "temporary" tax increases for permanent spending cuts.

You don't honestly believe that'll ever happen if we push it off for another day, do you? I mean, if we can't cut spending right now when we're massively in debt, why do you think we'll be able to do it when we're not? I'll ask again: Do you say this knowing that it wont happen? Or are you really just that gullible?

Quote:
Also, they had to spend so much to fix this craphole economy they inherited. See Jophiel's post above.


No they didn't. See my response, and see the numerous posts I've made about this subject on this forum over the last couple weeks. There is virtually zero data to support that we needed any spending other than TARP to fix the economy, strong data showing that the bulk of that needed TARP money has been paid back, and some more data that suggests that the actual effect from that economic crisis was more or less eliminated by 2010. Everything we're suffering right now is a result of the over spending the Democrats did in 2009 and 2010. And almost none of that spending had any effect on fixing the economy. The economic crisis was an excuse for the Dems to push all the social spending programs they'd wanted to enact over the last 40 years but didn't have the numbers to get done.

Seriously, look at the facts. TARP was paid back. Financial industry is healthy. The markets have recovered. Revenues for this year are projected to be back to 2007 levels. Yet we are sitting at 9%+ unemployment and a projected $1.5T deficit (this year). None of that can be traced to the Bush tax rates, or to the mortgage bubble bursting.

There's no magic to this. The numbers just don't add up in a way that supports what you (and the Dems) are saying. Our current economic woes can be traced almost entirely to new spending increases enacted by the Democrats since taking control of the government in 2009. I mean, we're probably still a hundred billion or so short on revenue based on what the trend should have been, but that's just not even close to explaining the deficit gap.

Quote:
You use a lot of words and proper grammar so you come off smart, I see the man behind the curtain now.


I come off smart because what I'm saying is intelligent, logical, and based on facts, not rhetoric and scare tactics. There is no man behind the curtain here. I write what I believe and I base what I believe on the data that is available. And in this case, the data very clearly shows that the current deficit crisis we're in is the direct result of massive overspending by the Democrats. It's just amazing to me that I can post the actual numbers, which show this incontrovertibly, and some people are so blinded by their ideology that they still refuse to see it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Apr 21 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Quote:
some people are so blinded by their ideology that they still refuse to see it.
You've taught them well.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#146 Apr 21 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
some people are so blinded by their ideology that they still refuse to see it.
You've taught them well.
Its only blind if other people do it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Apr 21 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:

Yes, I said that. What I meant was that I'm not a politician proposing a bill. Good one though.


That has to be the most lame backpedal I've ever seen on this forum. I don't think anyone thought you were proposing legislation to the house floor or anything, but you are clearly "proposing" a solution on this forum. Which, given that we're on this forum, would seem to be relevant enough for you to take responsibility for. Don't you agree?

Or are you arguing that nothing you say really matters because you aren't personally going to be doing anything about it? One might wonder why you bother posting then?

I guess it's backpedaling, I did admit I said it though and explained why.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
So there is no option other than to do what the Dems want? But you don't support their agenda, you just happen to think there's no other alternative! Has it occurred to you that the reason they spent so much even in the midst of a falling economy was precisely so that people like you would assume there was no option but to raise taxes?


Yes, there is another option...the one I said (compromise).


gbaji wrote:
That's not "another option" That's the one you proposed (to the forum!), and which the Dems want. Please tell me you understand that the Democrats want a "compromise" which results in a temporary tax increase and small immediate cuts to pay for the current crisis so that they can push the big spending cuts to another day when there isn't a crisis and the public has become more dependent on new spending and will thus be less inclined to swap those "temporary" tax increases for permanent spending cuts.

You don't honestly believe that'll ever happen if we push it off for another day, do you? I mean, if we can't cut spending right now when we're massively in debt, why do you think we'll be able to do it when we're not? I'll ask again: Do you say this knowing that it wont happen? Or are you really just that gullible?


I guess I wasn't clear enough on how much I think we should cut spending (more cuts than the democrats want, but less than the republicans want...maybe about halfway?)

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Also, they had to spend so much to fix this craphole economy they inherited. See Jophiel's post above.


No they didn't. See my response, and see the numerous posts I've made about this subject on this forum over the last couple weeks. There is virtually zero data to support that we needed any spending other than TARP to fix the economy, strong data showing that the bulk of that needed TARP money has been paid back, and some more data that suggests that the actual effect from that economic crisis was more or less eliminated by 2010. Everything we're suffering right now is a result of the over spending the Democrats did in 2009 and 2010. And almost none of that spending had any effect on fixing the economy. The economic crisis was an excuse for the Dems to push all the social spending programs they'd wanted to enact over the last 40 years but didn't have the numbers to get done.

Seriously, look at the facts. TARP was paid back. Financial industry is healthy. The markets have recovered. Revenues for this year are projected to be back to 2007 levels. Yet we are sitting at 9%+ unemployment and a projected $1.5T deficit (this year). None of that can be traced to the Bush tax rates, or to the mortgage bubble bursting.

There's no magic to this. The numbers just don't add up in a way that supports what you (and the Dems) are saying. Our current economic woes can be traced almost entirely to new spending increases enacted by the Democrats since taking control of the government in 2009. I mean, we're probably still a hundred billion or so short on revenue based on what the trend should have been, but that's just not even close to explaining the deficit gap.


This is just pointless argument...Republicans will always blame the Democrats and Democrats will always blame Republicans.

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#148 Apr 21 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The numbers don't support this claim. They do support the claim that even without making any attempt to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts, the resulting debt was not only sustainable but was decreasing.

Who just said tax cuts? Are you ignoring Bush's unfunded wars and massive unfunded entitlement spending?

Or just ignoring it and hoping no one will bring it up?

Quote:
But hey. You continue to quote the talking points and I'll continue to provide actual data showing that you're wrong.

By "actual data" you mean making things up and leaving out things that you don't like. Ok, understood.

Quote:
Um... And in case you're not remembering from last week, the pretty graph which showed the stimulus spending and you thought it was such an important point...

You mean the one you still don't know how to read. Well, ok.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Apr 21 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I guess I wasn't clear enough on how much I think we should cut spending (more cuts than the democrats want, but less than the republicans want...maybe about halfway?)


And I already covered this. If over a 2 year period the Dems increase spending by $500B/year, resulting in a debt crisis, and then "compromise" by cutting half of the deficit with spending cuts and half with tax increases, what is the net effect?

Answer: The net effect is a $250B/year spending increase with a $250B/year tax increase to pay for it.

The "halfway" solution is only a fair compromise if half of the deficit was caused by tax cuts and the other half by spending increases. But as I've explained at length, using real budget numbers over the time period in question, the tax rates did not change at all. The only thing that changed was spending. What you are suggesting is reasonable is not reasonable at all. It would be like me borrowing $100 from you, then when you ask me to pay you back, I suggest that we split the difference and offer up $50 as a "fair compromise" between me paying you nothing and me paying you back the full amount I owe. You'd never think that was fair, would you?


Why do you think so in this case? It's the exact same thing.

Quote:
This is just pointless argument...Republicans will always blame the Democrats and Democrats will always blame Republicans.


So let's not bother looking at any of the facts and just blindly support what the Democrats say, right? I mean, as much as you say you aren't a Democrat, you're basically repeating their talking points verbatim. Labeling something a compromise doesn't make it so. That label is applied by the Democrats (and their liberal pundits) exactly because they figure if they can get enough people calling it that, maybe everyone will believe it. Which again begs the question: Do you know this and are complicit in the lie? Or are you a gullible fool who's fallen for their tricks?


As I've pointed out repeatedly, the numbers just plain do not add up in a way which supports the claims being made by the Democrats. They just don't. And the fact that no one here has even tried to argue against the numbers strengthens my statement. You know the numbers aren't there. You know they don't work for your argument, so you avoid talking about them. Just ignore the facts and maybe no one will notice! That may be good for you, but that doesn't work for me at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Apr 21 2011 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
******
43,893 posts
If the opposite were in effect, the same situation would be playing out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Apr 21 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The numbers don't support this claim. They do support the claim that even without making any attempt to cut spending to pay for the tax cuts, the resulting debt was not only sustainable but was decreasing.

Who just said tax cuts? Are you ignoring Bush's unfunded wars and massive unfunded entitlement spending?


I've already shown that the total military spending delta between before the economy tanked and the end of last year was $140B/year. And the total increase in Medicare was $85B/year. Are you actually trying to argue that our $1.2T deficit last year was entirely made up of that $225B plus the portion of the revenue losses we could possibly attribute to the economic downturn itself (maximum of $400B, but we both know it's more like half of that). So... that accounts at maximum for half of last years deficit. Where, oh where did the rest of the money go?

Quote:
Or just ignoring it and hoping no one will bring it up?


Funny how me putting up real budget numbers to support my position is called "ignoring it", while you repeating fanciful claims with zero data to back it up is what? A solid argument?

Lol!

Quote:
By "actual data" you mean making things up and leaving out things that you don't like. Ok, understood.


I haven't seen you refute a single budget number I've provided Joph. You know why? Because they are accurate numbers but they refute your position so you'd rather just claim that they are false and hope no one checks on it. I'll happily provide the CBO source I'm using. It's not hard to find.


Where's the data supporting you? Not other people's opinions. Actual numbers Joph. Can you do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (54)