EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 45
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On December 18 2012 11:44 BluePanther wrote: 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? Neither religious conservatives nor economic conservatives on their own have any chance at getting any kind of majority at the national level: that's the fundamental problem facing the GOP right now. And frankly I think a Huckabee would stand a much better chance today than a Goldwater would anyway. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
Then, since taxes will be raised on everybody, Obama will propose tax cuts or breaks for the middle class to ease the burden, like it was his idea and not the republicans. And he will get huge public support for it. It's a win both ways for him. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On December 18 2012 17:44 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm starting to believe Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff. And when we do, he can blame Republicans again, because they refused to cave. The repeated "party of no, republican obstructionism" narrative is already in place for this. And he can simply make the argument "they refused to compromise because they were intent on protecting the rich," etc. So republicans will take the blame for the fiscal cliff, that part is easy. Then, since taxes will be raised on everybody, Obama will propose tax cuts or breaks for the middle class to ease the burden, like it was his idea and not the republicans. And he will get huge public support for it. It's a win both ways for him. Why would Obama ruin his legacy and his country to win political points for his party when he can't even be reelected lol... You're not just misguided you're living in an alternate reality. OR maybe you're expecting the Democrats to do what the Republicans would do? P.S. the party in power expecting the party out of power to cave? Oh the humility. Get that man to a firing squad. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On December 18 2012 17:44 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm starting to believe Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff. And when we do, he can blame Republicans again, because they refused to cave. The repeated "party of no, republican obstructionism" narrative is already in place for this. And he can simply make the argument "they refused to compromise because they were intent on protecting the rich," etc. So republicans will take the blame for the fiscal cliff, that part is easy. Then, since taxes will be raised on everybody, Obama will propose tax cuts or breaks for the middle class to ease the burden, like it was his idea and not the republicans. And he will get huge public support for it. It's a win both ways for him. Republicans know they have to give in. All of the political maneuvering going on right now is for show since them giving in right away would have hurt republican pride too much and pride is all they have these days. I expect one more counter offer from republicans before they accept the president's next offer. Frankly the 400k number from the democrats is already very generous. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 18 2012 17:59 Feartheguru wrote: Why would Obama ruin his legacy and his country to win political points for his party when he can't even be reelected lol... You're not just misguided you're living in an alternate reality. OR maybe you're expecting the Democrats to do what the Republicans would do? P.S. the party in power expecting the party out of power to cave? Oh the humility. Get that man to a firing squad. Umm, it wouldn't ruin his legacy or the country. Sounds like you are the one in an alternate reality here... | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On December 18 2012 18:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: Umm, it wouldn't ruin his legacy or the country. Sounds like you are the one in an alternate reality here... So you believe going over the fiscal cliff is not a bad thing... so.... you admit your point is wrong since Obama would have nothing to blame the Republicans on.... lol | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 18 2012 15:44 BluePanther wrote: 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. I've definitely seen it both ways. I've been involved with a few businesses that have seen profits (and thus executive compensation) rise substantially over the past 3 years and have chose to pocket those profits instead of reinvesting in their own business. They're hunting for passive investments outside of their business that don't require employees. In all of those cases, they are "hiring" for positions that seem to require a college education or a ton of experience, but paying at or below $10/hr. We're talking income rising for the owners rising by 2-3x since 2009 (while they all complain about Obama taking all that away). Not having to hire an accountant just means they make that much more. At the same time, there are businesses that are ALWAYS scrapping to reinvest and grow the business. If they can afford it, they do hire another worker. The money used to work out taxes would likely be reinvested. On December 18 2012 17:44 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm starting to believe Obama wants to go over the fiscal cliff. And when we do, he can blame Republicans again, because they refused to cave. The repeated "party of no, republican obstructionism" narrative is already in place for this. And he can simply make the argument "they refused to compromise because they were intent on protecting the rich," etc. So republicans will take the blame for the fiscal cliff, that part is easy. Then, since taxes will be raised on everybody, Obama will propose tax cuts or breaks for the middle class to ease the burden, like it was his idea and not the republicans. And he will get huge public support for it. It's a win both ways for him. I think that's how it's playing out, but I think Boehner recognizes that. I don't think the middle class has much to worry about in the end, though. They'll keep their tax rates and most of their benefits in SS and Medicare. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 18 2012 18:15 Feartheguru wrote: So you believe going over the fiscal cliff is not a bad thing... so.... you admit your point is wrong since Obama would have nothing to blame the Republicans on.... lol The fiscal cliff is more of a fiscal steep hill. If nothing is done AT ALL, it will be a disaster, but some stopgap measure will avoid most of the short and mid-term catastrophic effects being predicted, even if it's 1-3 months into the new year. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On December 18 2012 18:26 aksfjh wrote: The fiscal cliff is more of a fiscal steep hill. If nothing is done AT ALL, it will be a disaster, but some stopgap measure will avoid most of the short and mid-term catastrophic effects being predicted, even if it's 1-3 months into the new year. He just said that Obama wants the country go over the fiscal cliff and that it won't ruin the country. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 18 2012 18:35 Feartheguru wrote: He just said that Obama wants the country go over the fiscal cliff and that it won't ruin the country. It won't ruin the country. Yes, if we go over the fiscal cliff and then sit on our hands for 3-6 months, it will hurt, but it will be gradual. The immediate perception of failure on coming up with a deal is the biggest pain, and it's one Republicans are going to feel the most. | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On December 18 2012 18:45 aksfjh wrote: It won't ruin the country. Yes, if we go over the fiscal cliff and then sit on our hands for 3-6 months, it will hurt, but it will be gradual. The immediate perception of failure on coming up with a deal is the biggest pain, and it's one Republicans are going to feel the most. His argument is that Obama wants the country to go over the cliff, thus causing damage to the country for the sake of political gain. I responded by ridiculing the idea that Obama would do that when he has almost nothing to gain. Why are you guys talking about my choice of words about how much damage it would do to the country when only the premise that it WOULD result in a net negative effect is the only part that's relevant. | ||
|
KingAce
United States471 Posts
So I can see how pissed they can get when they're being coerced into charity...basically. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Gonozal
Germany320 Posts
On December 18 2012 21:06 KingAce wrote: I completely understand why the wealthy don't want to pay higher taxes. Apart from defense, what do they really benefit from higher taxes? Taxes really only help the poor. The wealthy don't need to take their kids to public schools, they can afford their own insurance etc. So I can see how pissed they can get when they're being coerced into charity...basically. But you need well educated and healhy workers in your labs/factorys... Furthermore wealth means responsibility for the society. A rich person need to be responsible for the society and pay for it. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On December 18 2012 21:06 KingAce wrote: I completely understand why the wealthy don't want to pay higher taxes. Apart from defense, what do they really benefit from higher taxes? Taxes really only help the poor. The wealthy don't need to take their kids to public schools, they can afford their own insurance etc. So I can see how pissed they can get when they're being coerced into charity...basically. It's pretty obvious people, no matter where they are in society, prefer to be more rich then less rich. Or, in other words, prefer to pay less taxes than pay more taxes. There are many reasons for government to step in and actively pursue policies that redistribute income (and some reasons not to!), but it's kind of a no-brainer that people who hold wealth don't want to redistribute it. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 18 2012 21:19 Souma wrote: They benefit from society not revolting against them... amongst other things. The benifit of avoiding a revolution is a very hard thing to say anything about to be honest. It seems revolutions are easier to set up today than earlier, but to me it seems more like a question of how the media spin it as long the population trusts the media. Media has been the religion of the modern era from the point of Karl Marx (Ie. opiate of the masses). The only joker in this is the rise and use of the internet today and the spread of information is getting hijacked there too! | ||
|
KingAce
United States471 Posts
On December 18 2012 22:06 Sbrubbles wrote: It's pretty obvious people, no matter where they are in society, prefer to be more rich then less rich. Or, in other words, prefer to pay less taxes than pay more taxes. There are many reasons for government to step in and actively pursue policies that redistribute income (and some reasons not to!), but it's kind of a no-brainer that people who hold wealth don't want to redistribute it. But I am starting to see their argument especially in this semi capitalist country. The economy depends on them to invest and create jobs. However, it's also punishing them for succeeding. It must be especially frustrating when some of the programs the money goes to are straight up bs. How long do people really need to stay on unemployment benefits? Some of these people make more than someone who's actually putting some effort in and working. From what I have seen from my boss trying to hire employees...I work in a hotel. People don't want to work. They're to picky and feel a sense of entitlement. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18863 Posts
On December 18 2012 22:50 KingAce wrote: But I am starting to see their argument especially in this semi capitalist country. The economy depends on them to invest and create jobs. However, it's also punishing them for succeeding. It must be especially frustrating when some of the programs the money goes to are straight up bs. How long do people really need to stay on unemployment benefits? Some of these people make more than someone who's actually putting some effort in and working. From what I have seen from my boss trying to hire employees...I work in a hotel. People don't want to work. They're to picky and feel a sense of entitlement. No, what is straight up bs is that our economy can falter and face immense struggle while the top income bracket only becomes richer. Look at it this way. These past 5-10 years, even if one figures in a heavy dose of social safety net abuse, the middle and lower classes have weathered the bulk of economic hardship, whether that take the form of job loss, home loss, or loan difficulty. Meanwhile, corporate profits have, in many industries, never been better, and the concentration of wealth at the top has only become more substantial. Tangent to the diminishing marginal utility of income, the rich have insulated themselves from the ups and downs of the market in a way that the less wealthy simply cannot. My point is that a system that distributes hardship with such inequality amongst the poor and dwindling middle class simply requires redistribution. There is no other way via our current dynamic. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 18 2012 15:44 BluePanther wrote: 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. Yes, this is why capitalism is an economic system based on accumulation for accumulations sake... | ||
| ||
