EPTOn January 11 2011 06:25 Mayfly wrote:
Leave me alone now you idiot.
Leave me alone now you idiot.
When beaten by arguments and facts it is always wise to start calling names. Works everytime.
Republicans Open the New Session of Congress - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
When beaten by arguments and facts it is always wise to start calling names. Works everytime. | ||
|
Balthasar
United States33 Posts
I'll admit a mea culpa for being derogatory to that German's guy English. It's was off-handed cheap shot as well, but he did call me a prick, so I think we're even. And to the guy who inferred my English sucked, I thought my spelling was pretty good for the amount of posts I put up recently. I do bend the rules of grammar, but it's a forum post, not a research paper. On January 11 2011 05:50 DoubleReed wrote: How did this thread get derailed so badly? It seemed pretty straightforward to me. Democrats instituted federal spending limits to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. Republicans take congress and immediately try to unbalance that by exempting tax cuts from the law. This is fiscally irresponsible of the Republicans. This makes balancing the budget that much harder and makes federal spending less transparent. Why are the "right-wingers" in favor of the Republicans in this case (especially libertarians)? This is can make the federal debt much larger. Why not have stricter regulations on federal spending? Which the democrats instituted under Obama! What more is there to it people? Well, Obama is spending like there's no tomorrow, maybe, that's why libertarians are mad at him. "according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years" - WSJ. Although Bush sucked too. I think libertarians align with Reps more because we have more allies within that party. Although there are a few good blue dogs too. Also when did Dems create a Fed spending limit? I know Federal Spending Limit amendment proposed by 3 Reps http://www.saveyourrights.com/republican/a-spending-limit-amendment-to-the-constitution-an-idea-whose-time-is-right/. Can you give me a link to it or name of bill? | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 11 2011 10:09 Leporello wrote: A) I'm not defending the Democrats except to say they have a better record of fiscal responsibility than the Republicans, which, if you look at any website dealing with the National Debt that ISN'T the Heritage Foundation, you'd see is absolutely true. B) "The better way to reduce the debt ratio is by combining pro-growth tax policies with spending restraint." Right.... Right.... We've been hearing that since Reagan came into office. This exact philosophy. History speaks for itself. Reaganomics has sunk this country into debt. Republicans want to act like it's Welfare's fault. Or healthcare's fault. But really, it's because Reagan completely revamped the tax-code and sunk our government's revenue. The Heritage Foundation will tell you that Reagan's tax cuts DOUBLED government revenue (while providing no credible sources for that claim). Ergo, the Heritage Foundation is either full of complete morons, or liars. Take your pick. Just don't go posting their articles and expect people to take them at their word. Reaganonmics did not sink the country into debt, the tax cuts were good but there was no spending restraint. That caused the debt. | ||
|
misaTO
Argentina204 Posts
Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits. American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there. My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should? Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=C387638C-41A3-499B-9315-5AF8940C47DD | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On January 11 2011 12:21 misaTO wrote: Idiots argue over semantics. Reps have stated that Tax cuts repay themselves. If that is the case, why shouldn't we abolish taxation. It pays itself right? That's a completely fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure the gop doesn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves. Economically speaking, Tax cuts & Public spending are not bad for the economy per se. Both can benefit a depressed economy. The problem is that when this Expenditures & the Tax cuts don't create future benefits. American economy needs a jump-start so Private capitals can take over from there. My question for you the forumers is : Are we cutting where we should? Ideologicaly speaking, both parties are very flexible as Political Institutions it terms of the people's Demands they channel into the Political Agenda. The truth is there is no much difference between a Rep & a Dem. There is also what we see on TV that has little to do with reality. Every single Media producer is lying to you. The rest of this post makes little sense and then goes off into another strawman: the media. All reps and dems are the same? What kind of world are you living in? I'll agree that party politics is bogged with stuff that doesn't have to do with the ideologies of either side, but making sensationalist statements like that is just as bad. I'm sorry but I don't want posters like you representing the liberal side. (or any side for that matter) | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On January 11 2011 11:26 Balthasar wrote: Well, Obama is spending like there's no tomorrow, maybe, that's why libertarians are mad at him. "according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years" - WSJ. Although Bush sucked too. I think libertarians align with Reps more because we have more allies within that party. Although there are a few good blue dogs too. Also when did Dems create a Fed spending limit? I know Federal Spending Limit amendment proposed by 3 Reps http://www.saveyourrights.com/republican/a-spending-limit-amendment-to-the-constitution-an-idea-whose-time-is-right/. Can you give me a link to it or name of bill? http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-09/politics/obama.paygo_1_paygo-blue-dogs-proposal?_s=PM:POLITICS Just google Obama and Pay-As-You-Go. It was a policy instituted while Clinton was president and republicans had the congress. Many say it helped with balancing the budget during those years in office (which is debatable, but it certainly doesn't hurt). It was abandoned by Bush because the republicans roamed free spending money on everything with little oversight. Obama wants Pay-As-You-Go actually to be signed into law. Almost all of Obama's spending initiatives actually outline how they're being paid for, including the stimulus plan and things like that. They have openly said that short term spending is necessary, but the actual bills signed and everything actually declare how they are going to get that money back. Obama is not actually "spending like there's no tomorrow," because additionally he plans on getting that money. For instance, we did kind of have a huge bank crisis... Republicans are literally taking Pay-As-You-Go and saying "Okay, sounds good, except for tax cuts." THAT is fiscally stupid. That doesn't make sense. If you have a tax cut, you should still plan where you're going to get that money. Otherwise, we're not actually reducing government spending! It's as simple as that. It's things like that why I am confused why Libertarians are on the Republican side of things. Both socially and fiscally, republicans have just not shown me any libertarian values whatsoever. They talk the talk, but there are more Democrats that actually walk the walk. Edit: That amendment just looks silly, imo. Completely impractical. America has changed a bit since Thomas Jefferson's time. Social Security and Defense alone probably breaks that. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:08 DoubleReed wrote: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-09/politics/obama.paygo_1_paygo-blue-dogs-proposal?_s=PM:POLITICS Just google Obama and Pay-As-You-Go. It was a policy instituted while Clinton was president and republicans had the congress. Many say it helped with balancing the budget during those years in office (which is debatable, but it certainly doesn't hurt). It was abandoned by Bush because the republicans roamed free spending money on everything with little oversight. Obama wants Pay-As-You-Go actually to be signed into law. Almost all of Obama's spending initiatives actually outline how they're being paid for, including the stimulus plan and things like that. They have openly said that short term spending is necessary, but the actual bills signed and everything actually declare how they are going to get that money back. Obama is not actually "spending like there's no tomorrow," because additionally he plans on getting that money. For instance, we did kind of have a huge bank crisis... Republicans are literally taking Pay-As-You-Go and saying "Okay, sounds good, except for tax cuts." THAT is fiscally stupid. That doesn't make sense. If you have a tax cut, you should still plan where you're going to get that money. Otherwise, we're not actually reducing government spending! It's as simple as that. It's things like that why I am confused why Libertarians are on the Republican side of things. Both socially and fiscally, republicans have just not shown me any libertarian values whatsoever. They talk the talk, but there are more Democrats that actually walk the walk. Edit: That amendment just looks silly, imo. Completely impractical. America has changed a bit since Thomas Jefferson's time. Social Security and Defense alone probably breaks that. Well an amendment that removed Congress authority to borrow money (unless War or 2/3 vote might be better) | ||
|
DTrain
Australia64 Posts
On January 11 2011 04:41 Mayfly wrote: To step into the martyr role for I while: I was warned in another thread for mentioning that Mein Kampf wasn't right-wing (when someone brought it up as an exampe of a right-wing book) and that you can't easily place the ideas expressed in that book on the political compass. The mod disagreed with me and warned me for "trolling". Some guy in here said I was trolling when I said I thought unfair regulation on banks forced them into creative solutions that caused the financial crisis. I guess it's controversial, but I can back it up, and it's my honest belief. If controversial = trolling = bannable offense, then many rightist ideas = bannable offense, as well as a few far-left ideas and a lot of other beliefs people may have. I would be interested to hear more about your opinion that too much regulation caused the financial crisis. What kind of regulation was there? and what kind of problems did it cause? Here in Australia, the banks are heavily regulated. They have to keep reserves of liquid assets, they need government approval before they can merge, and there are limits on who they can lend to. They can't lend money to people unless the person can demonstrate an ability to pay the money back. During the financial crisis, the 4 main Australian banks were still turning over profits. They never came close to insolvency despite the problems in the international money markets. | ||
|
Mayfly
145 Posts
On January 12 2011 12:58 DTrain wrote: I would be interested to hear more about your opinion that too much regulation caused the financial crisis. What kind of regulation was there? and what kind of problems did it cause? Long, trolling (according to some) text inc: Studies in the early 90's showed that blacks were denied mortage loans more so than whites, and this caused an outrage in the media. The Attorney General (Janet Reno) and the HUD threatened legal action against any bank that declined a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants. So the banks lowered their down payment- and income requirements. Now of course loans are not a favor from the banks to us, they do make money off of it, so it would be very strange of them to all of a sudden not like money in favor of discrimination. Nevertheless, regulations and policies were put in place that lowered the mortgage loan approval standards so that more low- and moderate-income borrowers could be approved. (It's not even clear if this helped the minority situation, but that's what they did). HUD also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more mortagages made to those low- and moderate-income borrowers. In fact, 42 percent of the mortgages bought had to be financed for those with an income below the median income where they lived. So FM & FM, too, had to lower their standards. So they were pushed to buy more subprime mortgages and increase their risks -- normally that would discourage investors to buy into that enterprise. But FM & FM's survival were all but guaranteed by the government, and they were pretty good about hiding their risks, too, i.e. being risky morons. Anyway, lenders had to resort to "creative" solutions, like interest-only mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages that made risky speculators of regular people. There's a lot of information available on exactly how those mortgages and derivatives work, I'm not going on that tangent here. The result of all this was that over half of African-Americans and 40 percent of Hispanics received subprime loans, a disproportionate share. And yeah, they were harder hit by the bust. Thanks alot, government? So you see that those regulations had quite the different effect than what was planned. They seem to be very different to what you describe in those Australian banks, as well. No wonder that they survived, then. They prove good regulation can stop what happened. But you know what else could have stopped it? A free market and less land use restrictions that were imposed by the government. The problem with regulation is that it needs to be just that, good, and be put in place by *people*. That those people work for the government doesn't make them any better or worse than any other people. Well, maybe worse. After all, there's an election to think of, so a quick fix is often better than a slow one. Those "fixes" then lead to new problems that need to be fixed. And there ya go, a ratchet of government intervention that turns only one way. To shout for regulation you have to ask and answer the following questions: With what accountability? With what power? By whom? Simply shouting for regulation isn't gonna help. If we had a few hundred thousand well-educated, incorruptible, poltically insulated regulators to keep the market in check then maybe it'd be worth it. Or maybe people entering the market can watch their own backs and not trust government intervention that may or may not be effective or even present. | ||
|
Balthasar
United States33 Posts
On January 12 2011 06:08 DoubleReed wrote: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-09/politics/obama.paygo_1_paygo-blue-dogs-proposal?_s=PM:POLITICS Just google Obama and Pay-As-You-Go. It was a policy instituted while Clinton was president and republicans had the congress. Many say it helped with balancing the budget during those years in office (which is debatable, but it certainly doesn't hurt). It was abandoned by Bush because the republicans roamed free spending money on everything with little oversight. Obama wants Pay-As-You-Go actually to be signed into law. Almost all of Obama's spending initiatives actually outline how they're being paid for, including the stimulus plan and things like that. They have openly said that short term spending is necessary, but the actual bills signed and everything actually declare how they are going to get that money back. Obama is not actually "spending like there's no tomorrow," because additionally he plans on getting that money. For instance, we did kind of have a huge bank crisis... Republicans are literally taking Pay-As-You-Go and saying "Okay, sounds good, except for tax cuts." THAT is fiscally stupid. That doesn't make sense. If you have a tax cut, you should still plan where you're going to get that money. Otherwise, we're not actually reducing government spending! It's as simple as that.. Yeah, I give props for Paygo to a Democratic Legislature and Republic Executive for enacting it. But, the Reps never got rid of it, it expired. Obama has no way of paying for anything. I don't want to bash on Obama too much, but his administration is already full of missteps. Personally, I'm annoyed we still have troops in Iraq which was a campaign promise to start removal August 2010 (also a key reason why many Americans voted for him). As for spending he's on pace to outspend every president before him. As for Republicans, who walk the walk and talk the talk: Governor Christie and Representative Ron Paul who have had excellent track records for just that. In the state of Washington the Democratic party controlled assembly and governor got rid of Washington's paygo last year by voting it out which was greatly opposed by the public at large. Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether. Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go. | ||
|
Mayfly
145 Posts
On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote: As for spending he's on pace to outspend every president before him. You mean, he has already outspent every single president... combined. | ||
|
Balthasar
United States33 Posts
It's might seem to many of the opposing viewpoints, I am pigheaded. But, perhaps you're the one who's being pigheaded. The reason I am so sure on my stance is I have done immense research on economics, finance, politics, and US history. I have also questioned my beliefs time and time again. I actually used to be a bleeding hurt liberal three-four years ago until I really learned about economics and learned the math behind the principles. The free-market was the best solution because although it doesn't divide the pie fairly, it grows the pie. When the government steps in to divide the pie, it often shrinks the pie and often divides it unfairly as well. The free-market will probably never give us fair, but it will give us progress meaning in ten years later most of us will live better than we do now that's the promise of free-market capitalism. | ||
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
On January 12 2011 16:21 Mayfly wrote: You mean, he has already outspent every single president... combined. Yes, if you don't put spending into context and compare it to GDP, per capita or any other number than he has outspent any other president, just like Bush did before him. But such useless comparisions are only done by trolls, anybody seriously interested in this argument would bother seeing the numbers in a relative way, as the absolut number has no real meaning. | ||
|
Mayfly
145 Posts
On January 12 2011 17:40 Rflcrx wrote: Yes, if you don't put spending into context and compare it to GDP, per capita or any other number than he has outspent any other president, just like Bush did before him. But such useless comparisions are only done by trolls, anybody seriously interested in this argument would bother seeing the numbers in a relative way, as the absolut number has no real meaning. Yes OMG you got me! I'm so ashamed. You totally took my joke and like, debunked it, man. Good trolling as usual. Stop following me around now? edit: Obama still has outspent every other president if you look at spending/GDP since WW2. Bush has not, in fact he's below the average. | ||
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
I mean, you have to decide. Oh and: Correcting your mistakes != trolling | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On January 12 2011 16:10 Balthasar wrote: Also why are you so confused Libertarians prefer Reps in general? Don't you know a key principle of libertarianism is low taxes and low spending? Many who prefer no income taxes altogether. Again, I'm not saying all Reps are good. Those neo-cons need to go. I think the confusion is caused by the facts that both republicans and democrats have libertarian aspects to their agenda. Reps are more economically liberal and more in favor of small government (with the exception of external and internal security) and dems are more liberal with regards to personal freedoms and civil rights. Perhaps the US needs a third party which combines both aspects of liberalism. That would be pretty close to reps without the neo-cons and probabaly also without the religious extremists. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
|
Mayfly
145 Posts
On January 12 2011 19:47 Electric.Jesus wrote: Reps are more economically liberal and more in favor of small government (with the exception of external and internal security) Kind of a big exception. On January 12 2011 18:11 Rflcrx wrote: First it was a joke (ofc!), than you are for real. Maybe pick one before you post? I mean, you have to decide. Oh and: Correcting your mistakes != trolling Yep, I was joking and I was later serious. Wow. A person capable of both joking and being serious, how can that be? The "outspent every other president combined" thing was a common bullshit line for a while that was quoted in various anti-Obama camps. That he outspent every other president (since WW2; not combined) if you look at spending total AND spending/gdp is true (if you extrapolate the remaining years or just compare year per year). | ||
|
crayhasissues
United States682 Posts
On January 12 2011 20:54 Mayfly wrote: Kind of a big exception. Yep, I was joking and I was later serious. Wow. A person capable of both joking and being serious, how can that be? The "outspent every other president combined" thing was a common bullshit line for a while that was quoted in various anti-Obama camps. That he outspent every other president (since WW2; not combined) if you look at spending total AND spending/gdp is true (if you extrapolate the remaining years or just compare year per year). I can't wait till Obama tries to explain away all the money the last Congress spent (and he approved) in the upcoming 2012 election. Will he blame Bush still? I hope not, Bush is long gone. Its Obama's economy now. If Obama had been a centrist from the get go, I think it would have been much more likely that he gets re-elected. I just want to see real solutions in government. Don't care if there is an R, D, I, or L by their names (we've seen that they ALL like spending that cheese, and not their cheese, mind you, OUR cheese) No hope or change or any other buzzword. And if they can't fix the problem, at least don't make it worse! | ||
| ||
OLITICS
