|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2012 09:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 09:18 kwizach wrote:On December 17 2012 07:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous. Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly? clearly he thinks that a greater emphasis on God in schools would lead to a more moral lifestyle and a more morally aware society. this is a pretty common line of thinking that most, if not all, Christians agree with. it's arguable if it will or not, but that right there means his opinion isn't disgusting or inherently wrong, there are legitimate and valid arguments to be made that a greater focus on religion can lead to a more cohesive and moral society, just as there are legitimate and valid arguments to make against that position. since there can be a legitimate discussion about the issue, I think that means he's not an asshole for bringing it up, and he's not just pushing an agenda. he honestly perceives that as a way to help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. I could just as easily say that anyone who brought up gun-control is being an asshole and should shut up and is just pushing their agenda, but I don't do that because my disagreement with a position doesn't make the position an immoral one to take. Ok, so you don't have anything to support a link between the two except that it's "the opinion" of most Christians. Since he did not even present it as his opinion but as fact, we can legitimately say that for doing so on the back of a national tragedy he's an asshole promoting his agenda. I didn't say I don't have anything to support a link between the two. (though, I'm not very interested in having this argument right now. maybe later) of course he presented it as a fact, in his opinion it is a fact that it would have helped. and no, a national tragedy does not mean that everyone who might have a different opinion than you has to shut up about it. Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about. If you're going to ignore what I write/answer it with "who cares", then I don't really get the point of replying to me. We get it, you don't think he's an asshole. Good for you. I didn't ignore what you said, I addressed it and then responded with a point of my own: why don't you apply that standard to everyone, with all opinions? The answer to your question is in the post you "replied" to. "That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda [unrelated to the tragedy], makes him an asshole." Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: as for there being no evidence of Christianity in schools leading to less violence in schools... well... is there any evidence against it? how many random school shootings like this happened when the Bible was taught in schools and the religion of the country was more homogenous and prevalent in the public sphere? Oh wow, what a great point. Is there any evidence against teaching about the Spaghetti monster reducing violence? Hey, since we're bringing up stuff with no evidence to support any link, how many school shootings like this happened when airplanes had not been invented yet? Do you think airplanes might be the problem?
how do you know it isn't a factual claim? is there any reason you have to believe that teaching Christianity in schools would not lead to a less violent society? obviously, Mr. Huckabee feels that it is a fact, and despite your apparently vehement disagreement with him, you have yet to provide a reason for your disagreement other than your own opinion. and even then, I could understand the disagreement without making the obviously erroneous claim that it has nothing to do with the tragedy, or the insistence that disagreement means he's an asshole. ideas on how to prevent tragedies like this from occurring are not unrelated from the tragedy, and his agenda is only his agenda because he feels that it would help the problem. I seriously doubt that Huckabee doesn't believe, very honestly, that a greater emphasis on Christianity would be beneficial to society and would possibly help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. you've simply made the declaration that it wouldn't be, couldn't be, and furthermore is WRONG to even suggest or question your own assertion. and you didn't answer the question. gun control is at least as unrelated as Christianity, yet I don't see you calling down Fienstein and Bob Costas for using a tragedy to promote their agenda. I'll tell you why I don't call them down, despite disagreeing with them strongly. it's because they are not trying to push some sinister agenda, they are sincerely offering their opinions on what could help prevent the tragedy, and their opinions are not radical, nor uncommon.
you missed the point in the second quotation. I'm not saying that there being no evidence against it means that it's true, I'm saying that you have no reason to categorically reject the assertion without bringing any evidence of your own. if you make the claim that it is so clearly irrelevant, than perhaps you should support that claim, rather than only ask for vague evidence, which you yourself probably cannot define. exactly what should I be researching in order to provide evidence that random acts of mass violence could possibly be alleviated by a greater focus on Christianity? would finding the instances of mass, random violence from when Christianity was taught in schools and comparing that to the instances from when Christianity was not taught suffice as evidence for you? it seems to me that you're saying it doesn't. in fact, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that no possible evidence could exist, or if it did exist it wouldn't mean anything to you, that no matter what, even if he is right, he's an asshole for bringing it up.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing?
Uh, who has all the power? If one party had 'all the power' there wouldn't be a fiscal cliff.
|
On December 17 2012 09:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:16 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 09:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 09:10 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 09:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:Darn it, Danglars. You got to it before me.... >_< Republicans are stuck with a lose-lose situation on this move, if you ask me. If the economy turns up, the Democrats will praise themselves for "fixing" it. If the economy takes a dive again, they'll blame Republicans for taking too long to agree on this. Boehner's best bet would be to say to the Dems and the President, "Look. Nothing's going to pass unless we implement a tax increase, right? Well, here you go. Merry Christmas. We're giving you what you want. Now this is your idea we're getting behind here, not ours (the Republicans'). Just so we're clear on that, okay?" + Show Spoiler [Right-Biased Rant] +As an extremely fiscal conservative, I don't like the move one bit. Raising the taxes on the rich is only going to isolate them from our economy, and many that can will likely move elsewhere, to nations that don't tax as high. This will tell the rich (who help create jobs, by the way), "Hey. We don't like the fact that you have lots of money. Compared, of course, to these poor folks on welfare and food stamps. We're going to take even more of your money and give to them instead."
The only economy we'll be kickstarting, is some other country's.... I hate this idea, to be honest. if we have all the power: Congress, than why should we bother giving them a damn thing? we'll be blamed either way. if you think us passing these nonsense tax hikes at the worst possible time will give us any points, then you're insane. conservative's will flip their shit and moderates will still blame us when the economy inevitably tanks. but we'll have done the one thing we can't keep doing which is shield and protect the middle class from their own horrible voting behaviors and shield and protect Obama from his own horrible economic decisions. for the last four years, Republicans have given Obama everything he really wanted. we allow him to push radical legislation and reform through, and all the while have protected him from ever being seen as doing so by limiting that legislation's short-term effects on the general populace. so we end up taking the blame for the crap and we give Obama the chance to say he's some bipartisan that get's things done. it's ridiculous. it's like these people have no clue how to play the political game at all. let us go over the fiscal cliff, and Republicans will take a hit, yeah. but Obama will take a hit too, and it will be the first time his temper tantrum didn't get him his way, so the hit to him will be way worse than the hit to us. We're going to be blamed anyway, we might as well bring him down with us and not protect him from his own crap. I spent ten years hearing how the Bush tax cuts only benefit the rich, and now that they're about to expire, the story and rhetoric coming from the left is completely changed. screw that. they wanted the Bush tax cuts gone and now they can have it. playing Obama's game hasn't gotten us anywhere. Uhhh.... that's not true at all. in a political sense it is. There are some tremendous mental gymnastics going on here. A major component of Obama's success in the previous election was his ability to convince liberals that he would make up for his lack of political success. Even Obamacare itself got wing clipped. or we could turn it around and say that a major component of his success was the Republicans in Congress never forcing the issue with him. 1) they have the power of appropriation, they could have cut off his spending years ago. 2) they made a ridiculous compromise with him to allow him to kick the debt ceiling debacle down the road, and allowed the Dems to create a psuedo-fiscal cliff to use as the proverbial gun to the country's head. 3) they fought hard enough to neuter some of his stuff, but that just allows him to pass a neutered, ineffective, wasteful bill that we'll somehow get the blame for (Obamacare). Republicans could have played this like Gingrich did with Clinton, but then again, that would take them admitting that their coup in the 90s was pathetic and boot-licking. something they will never do, because even though they are our bastards, they're still bastards.
Debt ceiling debacle? You mean that moment of insanity that got our credit rating downgraded because Republicans balked at spending money they'd already agreed to spend through their appropriation powers? Psuedo fiscal cliff? It is a reduction in Gov spending and tax hikes above projected GDP growth without the cliff. It's a self imposed recession, a horrible idea.
Your third point seems to be saying "I'm wrong, they fought, but I'm still right because Obamacare passed as a neutered and ineffective version" Which I'm sure is what Obama wanted. If you want to find out if Republicans fought, go look up filibusters in the Senate these past ears compared to historical norms.
|
On December 17 2012 09:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:39 kwizach wrote:On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 17 2012 09:18 kwizach wrote:On December 17 2012 07:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly? clearly he thinks that a greater emphasis on God in schools would lead to a more moral lifestyle and a more morally aware society. this is a pretty common line of thinking that most, if not all, Christians agree with. it's arguable if it will or not, but that right there means his opinion isn't disgusting or inherently wrong, there are legitimate and valid arguments to be made that a greater focus on religion can lead to a more cohesive and moral society, just as there are legitimate and valid arguments to make against that position. since there can be a legitimate discussion about the issue, I think that means he's not an asshole for bringing it up, and he's not just pushing an agenda. he honestly perceives that as a way to help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. I could just as easily say that anyone who brought up gun-control is being an asshole and should shut up and is just pushing their agenda, but I don't do that because my disagreement with a position doesn't make the position an immoral one to take. Ok, so you don't have anything to support a link between the two except that it's "the opinion" of most Christians. Since he did not even present it as his opinion but as fact, we can legitimately say that for doing so on the back of a national tragedy he's an asshole promoting his agenda. I didn't say I don't have anything to support a link between the two. (though, I'm not very interested in having this argument right now. maybe later) of course he presented it as a fact, in his opinion it is a fact that it would have helped. and no, a national tragedy does not mean that everyone who might have a different opinion than you has to shut up about it. Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about. If you're going to ignore what I write/answer it with "who cares", then I don't really get the point of replying to me. We get it, you don't think he's an asshole. Good for you. I didn't ignore what you said, I addressed it and then responded with a point of my own: why don't you apply that standard to everyone, with all opinions? The answer to your question is in the post you "replied" to. "That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda [unrelated to the tragedy], makes him an asshole." On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: as for there being no evidence of Christianity in schools leading to less violence in schools... well... is there any evidence against it? how many random school shootings like this happened when the Bible was taught in schools and the religion of the country was more homogenous and prevalent in the public sphere? Oh wow, what a great point. Is there any evidence against teaching about the Spaghetti monster reducing violence? Hey, since we're bringing up stuff with no evidence to support any link, how many school shootings like this happened when airplanes had not been invented yet? Do you think airplanes might be the problem? how do you know it isn't a factual claim? is there any reason you have to believe that teaching Christianity in schools would not lead to a less violent society? obviously, Mr. Huckabee feels that it is a fact, and despite your apparently vehement disagreement with him, you have yet to provide a reason for your disagreement other than your own opinion. and even then, I could understand the disagreement without making the obviously erroneous claim that it has nothing to do with the tragedy, or the insistence that disagreement means he's an asshole. ideas on how to prevent tragedies like this from occurring are not unrelated from the tragedy, and his agenda is only his agenda because he feels that it would help the problem. I seriously doubt that Huckabee doesn't believe, very honestly, that a greater emphasis on Christianity would be beneficial to society and would possibly help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. you've simply made the declaration that it wouldn't be, couldn't be, and furthermore is WRONG to even suggest or question your own assertion. and you didn't answer the question. gun control is at least as unrelated as Christianity, yet I don't see you calling down Fienstein and Bob Costas for using a tragedy to promote their agenda. I'll tell you why I don't call them down, despite disagreeing with them strongly. it's because they are not trying to push some sinister agenda, they are sincerely offering their opinions on what could help prevent the tragedy, and their opinions are not radical, nor uncommon.
Huckabee's agenda has been the reintroduction of Christianity in the public sphere (including exposing school students to Christianity, not through critical analysis but through religious teaching). It has been his agenda for quite some time, and the origin of that agenda is completely unrelated to school shootings.
Of course, he can "apply" his belief that religious adherence to Christianity "cures society's ills" and should therefore be encouraged in the public sphere to almost anything, including school shootings. What he doesn't do, however, is pause and reflect on the complete lack of evidence that would suggest the link that exists in his mind between more religion in the public sphere and less school shootings might be real. The fact that he applies without an ounce of critical thinking and/or concern for others (who would be impacted if his not-rooted-in-any-evidence ideas were translated into policy) his agenda to a national tragedy like this is, again, what makes him an asshole. Meanwhile, the people who are advocating stricter gun control regulations are doing it precisely and only because they want to reduce gun violence, in particular school shootings like this one, and their stance isn't baseless/based on "gut feeling" (it's for example rooted on observed correlations between higher gun control and lesser gun violence, and higher gun ownership and higher gun violence - arguments whose merit I do not want to discuss here, but which have the merit of existing).
I also want to reiterate again that Huckabee goes further than argue that the spreading of and exposure to Christian ideas (and, in between the lines, the spreading of religious affiliation to Christianity) would prevent such tragedies. He claims that this should happen in the public sphere. This isn't an Atheism vs Christianity debate. It's a separation of Church and State debate, and I see even less possible justification for asking for the breakdown of the barrier between public and private spheres than for the spreading of religious ideas in the private sphere (even though I still disagree with the latter).
On December 17 2012 09:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
you missed the point in the second quotation. I'm not saying that there being no evidence against it means that it's true, I'm saying that you have no reason to categorically reject the assertion without bringing any evidence of your own. if you make the claim that it is so clearly irrelevant, than perhaps you should support that claim, rather than only ask for vague evidence, which you yourself probably cannot define. exactly what should I be researching in order to provide evidence that random acts of mass violence could possibly be alleviated by a greater focus on Christianity? would finding the instances of mass, random violence from when Christianity was taught in schools and comparing that to the instances from when Christianity was not taught suffice as evidence for you? it seems to me that you're saying it doesn't. in fact, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying that no possible evidence could exist, or if it did exist it wouldn't mean anything to you, that no matter what, even if he is right, he's an asshole for bringing it up.
No, see, that's you making up assumptions about my position and answering them. The reason I have for rejecting the assertion without further notice is that I see no logical reason for a link between the two, no scientific reason for a link between the two, no empirical reason for a link between the two. If Huckabee or anyone else is going to substantiate his claim, then I'll take a look at what he's basing it on (and no, "gut feeling" is not a valid way of substantiating one's claim).
Now, let me remind you again that Huckabee's position is about religion in schools, not simply religion. So not only would he need to provide evidence that religious affiliation to Christianity is a valid independent variable explaining a reduction in the tendency to resort to violence (something which data does not seem to point towards), he would also and more importantly have to defend his position that breaking the separation between Church and State, and introducing Christianity into the public sphere (notably in schools as religious teaching for all students), would be a good idea and would make a difference in reducing violence (as opposed to religious matters remaining in the private sphere). Again, I'm all ears.
edit: just in case, if you want to simply disagree with me and share your opinion that he's not an asshole, I got it and no need to reply to this again.
|
On December 17 2012 09:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 09:18 kwizach wrote:On December 17 2012 07:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:14 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:11 kwizach wrote:On December 16 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:07 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
It is. The two are completely unrelated, and the only thing he's doing is pushing his agenda. in your opinion they are unrelated. in many other people's opinion, they are not unrelated at all. I guess you could say that you disagree with his opinion and that because you disagree, he's an asshole for having that opinion, but I think that's a little ridiculous. Ah, the good old "it's only your opinion". How are the two supposed to be related exactly? clearly he thinks that a greater emphasis on God in schools would lead to a more moral lifestyle and a more morally aware society. this is a pretty common line of thinking that most, if not all, Christians agree with. it's arguable if it will or not, but that right there means his opinion isn't disgusting or inherently wrong, there are legitimate and valid arguments to be made that a greater focus on religion can lead to a more cohesive and moral society, just as there are legitimate and valid arguments to make against that position. since there can be a legitimate discussion about the issue, I think that means he's not an asshole for bringing it up, and he's not just pushing an agenda. he honestly perceives that as a way to help prevent tragedies like this from occurring. I could just as easily say that anyone who brought up gun-control is being an asshole and should shut up and is just pushing their agenda, but I don't do that because my disagreement with a position doesn't make the position an immoral one to take. Ok, so you don't have anything to support a link between the two except that it's "the opinion" of most Christians. Since he did not even present it as his opinion but as fact, we can legitimately say that for doing so on the back of a national tragedy he's an asshole promoting his agenda. I didn't say I don't have anything to support a link between the two. (though, I'm not very interested in having this argument right now. maybe later) of course he presented it as a fact, in his opinion it is a fact that it would have helped. and no, a national tragedy does not mean that everyone who might have a different opinion than you has to shut up about it. Huckabee knows very well that there is no serious study or any evidence that indicates Christians are less violent than Atheists. And that's not even what he's saying, since his point was not only that the Christian faith made people less violent but that the Christian faith should appear in school for all students. There is, again, ZERO evidence that this would make people less violent, and ZERO evidence or reason why it would prevent tragedies like this one. It is, however, the agenda he defends regardless of the shootings (bringing Christianity back into the public sphere). That's why presenting as factual something that isn't, and using a national tragedy in order to push forward his agenda, makes him an asshole. he didn't say that Christians are less violent. and who cares if he presented his feelings as facts, he believes they are facts. why aren't you people in the gun control thread with this attitude? why aren't you calling Bob Costas (and every other media personality from yesterday) an asshole? there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent things like this from occurring, and even if kwizach happens to disagree with them, that doesn't somehow make it wrong to talk about. If you're going to ignore what I write/answer it with "who cares", then I don't really get the point of replying to me. We get it, you don't think he's an asshole. Good for you. I didn't ignore what you said, I addressed it and then responded with a point of my own: why don't you apply that standard to everyone, with all opinions? edit: as for there being no evidence of Christianity in schools leading to less violence in schools... well... is there any evidence against it? how many random school shootings like this happened when the Bible was taught in schools and the religion of the country was more homogenous and prevalent in the public sphere?
The real problem here is that Huckabee didn't even articulate what he wants to do so any sort of analysis of "evidence" is impossible.
I mean, I don't even understand how we're keeping God out of American schools. We still have "under God" in the pledge. Kids are allowed to pray, there just isn't a requisite prayer. My public school education included at least 3 different units that taught about Judeo-Christian and other theologies.
Are we supposed to not teach evolutionary biology? Include an intelligent design unit? Not sure how that prevents gun violence. Include a required "why you have to be moral because of God" course? That's not of dubious Constitutionality at all. How does he think we can solve the "sin problem"? Answer: we can't. It's all handwringing.
Edit: In fact, one of the best signs of a politician becoming a pundit is when they start pointing out problems without even beginning to offer solutions.
Edit2: Unless Huckabee is saying that mandatory state-sponsored prayers at the beginning of school days will somehow prevent shootings like this? I can't even see the beginnings of a causal pathway.
|
I'm trying to remember why Huckabee is even relevant right now. I hear he's on Fox? Come to join the ranks with O'Reilley and say something inflammatory every so often to see if it catches on?
Here's where I left the guy. He played the social issues like a champ back '08 primaries, but he was a big government type that could never find a home in the conservative wing of the Republican party. Way too pork barrel to harness any kind of momentum for a presidential ticket in the Republican party (despite his best efforts in speeches to persuade otherwise), way too "Christian values" to find a home in the Democratic party, which might have agreed with his Arkansas government spending and tax increases.
Frankly, he does the value voters crowd a huge disservice. I'm all for voluntary prayer in schools. Adorn your courthouses with whatever Ten Commandments, Koran, or Spaghetti Monster paraphernalia that freely elected representatives vote for style. Who gave the Roman Lady of Justice (or Greece's Dike) a stranglehold on pagan symbology, anyways? Movements like that continue despite the best efforts of the Huckabees of this world to paint a convenient target to shoot them down with.
|
On December 18 2012 02:30 Danglars wrote:
I'm trying to remember why Huckabee is even relevant right now. I hear he's on Fox? Come to join the ranks with O'Reilley and say something inflammatory every so often to see if it catches on?
Here's where I left the guy. He played the social issues like a champ back '08 primaries, but he was a big government type that could never find a home in the conservative wing of the Republican party. Way too pork barrel to harness any kind of momentum for a presidential ticket in the Republican party (despite his best efforts in speeches to persuade otherwise), way too "Christian values" to find a home in the Democratic party, which might have agreed with his Arkansas government spending and tax increases.
Frankly, he does the value voters crowd a huge disservice. I'm all for voluntary prayer in schools. Adorn your courthouses with whatever Ten Commandments, Koran, or Spaghetti Monster paraphernalia that freely elected representatives vote for style. Who gave the Roman Lady of Justice (or Greece's Dike) a stranglehold on pagan symbology, anyways? Movements like that continue despite the best efforts of the Huckabees of this world to paint a convenient target to shoot them down with.
While I do not like Huckabee, though for vastly different reasons than Danglars lists above, I do not think it wise for Republicans to simply sweep him and his ideological ilk away. There is a reason the man has any sway at all, and if the "0 taxes" Republicans want the head of the party, they are going to need to figure out how to appeal to religious conservatives.
|
On December 18 2012 02:30 Danglars wrote:
Who gave the Roman Lady of Justice (or Greece's Dike) a stranglehold on pagan symbology, anyways?
Haha, word. Take that, bourgeois neoclassicism!
|
|
|
On December 18 2012 03:12 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 02:30 Danglars wrote:
I'm trying to remember why Huckabee is even relevant right now. I hear he's on Fox? Come to join the ranks with O'Reilley and say something inflammatory every so often to see if it catches on?
Here's where I left the guy. He played the social issues like a champ back '08 primaries, but he was a big government type that could never find a home in the conservative wing of the Republican party. Way too pork barrel to harness any kind of momentum for a presidential ticket in the Republican party (despite his best efforts in speeches to persuade otherwise), way too "Christian values" to find a home in the Democratic party, which might have agreed with his Arkansas government spending and tax increases.
Frankly, he does the value voters crowd a huge disservice. I'm all for voluntary prayer in schools. Adorn your courthouses with whatever Ten Commandments, Koran, or Spaghetti Monster paraphernalia that freely elected representatives vote for style. Who gave the Roman Lady of Justice (or Greece's Dike) a stranglehold on pagan symbology, anyways? Movements like that continue despite the best efforts of the Huckabees of this world to paint a convenient target to shoot them down with. While I do not like Huckabee, though for vastly different reasons than Danglars lists above, I do not think it wise for Republicans to simply sweep him and his ideological ilk away. There is a reason the man has any sway at all, and if the "0 taxes" Republicans want the head of the party, they are going to need to figure out how to appeal to religious conservatives.
Religious conservatives are political kryptonite. Siding with them is dangerous. You instantly lose almost as many votes as they bring. In that case, why not just ignore them, and hope some of them vote for you?
|
Ball is back in Boehner's court.
$400,000 is the new magical income amount on the table for a tax increase. Will Boehner cave again, or will they "Pawn Star" their way to an average between $250k and $1 mil.?
Liberals: should Obama have pushed his luck like this, or would you be satisfied by a tax on only the $1,000,000+ earners?
Conservatives: should Boehner give in again, or should he stand up to this counter-offer?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same.
|
On December 18 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same.
Believe Boehner said when he agreed to the tax increase to $1 mil., he promised to close loopholes at the same time. Personally, I'd rather see no tax increase/revert from Bush's cuts, and implement strict tax reform so as to maximize revenue without having to raise rates. Most notably, simplify the tax code. That beast has been sitting in front of the revenue pipe since forever....
|
On December 18 2012 12:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same. Believe Boehner said when he agreed to the tax increase to $1 mil., he promised to close loopholes at the same time. Personally, I'd rather see no tax increase/revert from Bush's cuts, and implement strict tax reform so as to maximize revenue without having to raise rates. Most notably, simplify the tax code. That beast has been sitting in front of the revenue pipe since forever....
"Simplifying the tax code" is just a way to close deductions that many lower income people need to get by.
|
On December 18 2012 13:13 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 12:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 18 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same. Believe Boehner said when he agreed to the tax increase to $1 mil., he promised to close loopholes at the same time. Personally, I'd rather see no tax increase/revert from Bush's cuts, and implement strict tax reform so as to maximize revenue without having to raise rates. Most notably, simplify the tax code. That beast has been sitting in front of the revenue pipe since forever.... "Simplifying the tax code" is just a way to close deductions that many lower income people need to get by.
But then the government, as well as private businesses, would save tons on time and labor when trying to figure out the now-monstrous tax code. The less an employer has to pay a tax expert or accountant to figure out taxes, the more an employer can pay to existing or future employees.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
tax credits for the masses do not take that much time to figure out. as i tried to explain earlier, tax accountants are there for shifting income structure to take advantage of tax code complexity beneficial for the rich. they are not there to serve the poor.
|
On December 18 2012 13:38 oneofthem wrote:
tax credits for the masses do not take that much time to figure out.
indeed, it tends to be the tax credits for those with masses of equity that require real tax expertise.
|
On December 18 2012 13:34 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 13:13 Livelovedie wrote:On December 18 2012 12:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 18 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same. Believe Boehner said when he agreed to the tax increase to $1 mil., he promised to close loopholes at the same time. Personally, I'd rather see no tax increase/revert from Bush's cuts, and implement strict tax reform so as to maximize revenue without having to raise rates. Most notably, simplify the tax code. That beast has been sitting in front of the revenue pipe since forever.... "Simplifying the tax code" is just a way to close deductions that many lower income people need to get by. But then the government, as well as private businesses, would save tons on time and labor when trying to figure out the now-monstrous tax code. The less an employer has to pay a tax expert or accountant to figure out taxes, the more an employer can pay to existing or future employees.
Sure in theory, but the employer could just pocket the extra savings and forgo stimulating the economy by not hiring the accountant.
|
On December 18 2012 13:34 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 13:13 Livelovedie wrote:On December 18 2012 12:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 18 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same. Believe Boehner said when he agreed to the tax increase to $1 mil., he promised to close loopholes at the same time. Personally, I'd rather see no tax increase/revert from Bush's cuts, and implement strict tax reform so as to maximize revenue without having to raise rates. Most notably, simplify the tax code. That beast has been sitting in front of the revenue pipe since forever.... "Simplifying the tax code" is just a way to close deductions that many lower income people need to get by. But then the government, as well as private businesses, would save tons on time and labor when trying to figure out the now-monstrous tax code. The less an employer has to pay a tax expert or accountant to figure out taxes, the more an employer can pay to existing or future employees.
yeah, that assumes that you're in an economy that has any interest in creating jobs
|
On December 18 2012 14:08 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 13:34 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 18 2012 13:13 Livelovedie wrote:On December 18 2012 12:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 18 2012 12:34 Souma wrote:
Depends how they're doing this tax increase. Are they closing loopholes? Raising income tax? A little bit of both? Personally, if they're sticking with this 400K number, I'd prefer it if they just made it so they couldn't take advantage of any deductions and leave the income tax rates the same. Believe Boehner said when he agreed to the tax increase to $1 mil., he promised to close loopholes at the same time. Personally, I'd rather see no tax increase/revert from Bush's cuts, and implement strict tax reform so as to maximize revenue without having to raise rates. Most notably, simplify the tax code. That beast has been sitting in front of the revenue pipe since forever.... "Simplifying the tax code" is just a way to close deductions that many lower income people need to get by. But then the government, as well as private businesses, would save tons on time and labor when trying to figure out the now-monstrous tax code. The less an employer has to pay a tax expert or accountant to figure out taxes, the more an employer can pay to existing or future employees. Sure in theory, but the employer could just pocket the extra savings and forgo stimulating the economy by not hiring the accountant.
No business operates this way.
If you have an influx of cash, you reinvest it if you believe your company is rising.
Why pocket it now when you can reinvest it and grow that income to pocket at a later date? The idea of "pocketing" cash isn't really how it work unless an owner realizes his business isn't sustainable--at which point it's kinda screwed anyways. A savvy business owner will reinvest and diversify.
Most wealth is usually potential wealth, i.e., the ability to generate funds by the sale of assets. It's not actual cash reserves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
