|
United States7483 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:05 Letho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 14:56 Falling wrote:
True religion is taking care of the orphan, widow, and alien- aka the dis-enfranchised.)
I see this all the time; you are attempting to argue that welfare is godlike. The simple answer is that no, it's not, at least not in its current form. You have 1% of the population paying 40% of the taxes, which enables 50% of the population to pay no tax / receive welfare from the government. Of course, even this 40% is not enough, so the entire country is going broke. I cannot recall anything in Christianity that calls on people to go into personal debt to others in the interest of providing welfare. Not to mention the fact that the actual recipients of welfare are by-and-large leading middle-class lives with the proceeds (albeit the lack of the whole 9-5 thing). There is a very sound reason for the separation of church and state in a republic. The church has always overseen welfare through voluntary efforts of its congregation; having a government step in and take over this process is both unprecedented and undesirable (as we have seen in recent years). Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 15:02 On_Slaught wrote:On September 08 2011 14:17 Letho wrote:As for the gay marriage thing, the nominee's response would be "no, I would leave it to the States." Perry signed a pledge commiting him to taking federal action to ban gay marriage. Yes he is stupid enough to pledge to doing something which would never pass and would alienate large parts of the country, including many republicans. http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-perry-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge-1087368.html Well, I'm gobsmacked...
Lol, the top 1% wealthiest people in the country aren't even remotely close, on any level, to going into debt. They're still absurdly rich. Let me lay this out for you: the bottom 50% of the population owns 2% of the wealth in the country total. Yeah... fuck those leeches.
|
On September 08 2011 22:41 Letho wrote:
it's a fact that the US was still considered the #1 place to live / make a living until 2009.
To use your own words, Would you care to present some facts to support your rather bold statement?
|
Soo... I figure instead of randomly debating current affairs, (which I'm happy to do as well btw), we could talk a bit about the big GOP nominee debate last night? Personally, I found it kind of disturbing.
Rick Perry claims that social security is a "ponzi scheme." Not the first time he's said this either. I hope he realizes that in order to win the election, he's going to need to win in Florida, which seems to be where all old people eventually migrate to. Not the best talking point imo.
Sickeningly, the line that got the most applause during the entire debate was when Perry proudly declared that his state Texas executes more people than any other state in the country. 234 people have been executed, (and one later found innocent) while Perry was governor, and the look on his face seemed disturbingly proud of it. The crowd loved the statistic. What is wrong with our country?
John Huntsman seemed incredibly reasonable during the entire debate. I think he's the only GOP candidate I could get behind, but sadly this means he's entirely unelectable for the nomination. He thinks about his answers, and provides rational basis for them. Sadly, I don't think the audience was rational, and he clearly bombed the debate with the viewers because of it.
Bachmann was as silly as ever, dodging questions regarding immigration.
"So after we build this fence, (referring to her ideas of building a fence along the entirety of the US/Mexico boarder), what will we do with the 10 million people who have already crossed?"
"Yes, we definitely need to build that fence."
"Alright, but after we build the fence, what do we do with those 10 million people?"
"The 50's and 60's were pretty great."
o.O What?
I also didn't understand Perry's analogy of Galileo and global warming. "Plenty of people questioned Galileo's ideas, just as we are still skeptical of climate change." I didn't quite get that, as it seems he's supporting quite the opposite.
So, what did anyone else think of the debates last night?
|
On September 08 2011 15:05 Letho wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 14:56 Falling wrote:
True religion is taking care of the orphan, widow, and alien- aka the dis-enfranchised.)
I see this all the time; you are attempting to argue that welfare is godlike. The simple answer is that no, it's not, at least not in its current form. You have 1% of the population paying 40% of the taxes, which enables 50% of the population to pay no tax / receive welfare from the government. Of course, even this 40% is not enough, so the entire country is going broke. I cannot recall anything in Christianity that calls on people to go into personal debt to others in the interest of providing welfare. Not to mention the fact that the actual recipients of welfare are by-and-large leading middle-class lives with the proceeds (albeit the lack of the whole 9-5 thing).
They pay that much more in taxes because they make that much more in income. I don't know how you think you can have CEOs making many many many times the income of their average employ and then expect the two to pay equal taxes. If you want the top % to control the vast majority of wealth then they will have to be taxed on it. No one else can be. Furthermore it isn't personal debt to someone. They are paying for society.
I am also unclear what you mean the free market adjusting the overall price. People still pay sales tax.
I will never understand why people rant and rave about taxes on the rich so much. We have one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized nation. If they had say a UKish 50% range tax then sure I might see it, but they don't.
|
Obama is on fire with this speech IMO. It will be interesting to see the nominees responses.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Obama is on fire with this speech IMO. It will be interesting to see the nominees responses.
His speech is fantastic, the responses will indeed be very interesting.
|
Good speech. Now to see what the follow-up will actually be.
I am 99% sure the majority of Republicans will reject everything though.
|
It'll be interesting to see how Fox News bashes Obama's speech(lol). It was pretty good, but we'll have to see his followup speech(I think he said it would be a week from monday?) about the deficit
|
His next speech, next week, for further deficit cuts.
EDIT: Pretty populist kind of speech.
|
United States7483 Posts
Fox News is bashing it by calling the entire thing a strawman that he didn't think could work and is actually just political grandstanding and campaigning that won't actually make a difference.
|
United States5162 Posts
Good speech. It's probably all hot air, but good speech.
|
wow the rich earned their money by hard work, don't need to tax them more already just because they are successful
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 08:52 Orchid wrote:
wow the rich earned their money by hard work, don't need to tax them more already just because they are successful
We've been over this a few hundred times on TL, take it to a different thread on the subject. Let's just try to keep this focused on the actual responses.
Fox is currently interviewing the chair of the Republican National Committee, who is lying through his teeth -_-. *sigh*
|
Canada11410 Posts
On September 09 2011 08:52 Orchid wrote:
wow the rich earned their money by hard work, don't need to tax them more already just because they are successful
That's true we don't need to tax them based on a sense of fairness or entitlement. We need to tax them because government requires money to operate (law enforcement, military, etc) and the rich happen to have a lot of money. Tax where the money is. You could even tax the Grade 1's lunch money in your efforts to be fair, but it's not going to get much money.
|
The BIG problem/hurdle with this plan, the Medicare cuts that could/would need to be done.
|
On September 09 2011 08:55 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 08:52 Orchid wrote:
wow the rich earned their money by hard work, don't need to tax them more already just because they are successful That's true we don't need to tax them based on a sense of fairness or entitlement. We need to tax them because government requires money to operate (law enforcement, military, etc) and the rich happen to have a lot of money. Tax where the money is. You could even tax the Grade 1's lunch money in your efforts to be fair, but it's not going to get much money.
I'm all about fairness, and about helping this country grow, and if we need to tax grade 1's lunch money, I say we do it full force.
|
Canada11410 Posts
Well at least you are consistent in your penny-pinching.
At a very surface level- the stimulus package has a very quotable title: American Job Act. I seem to recall that a couple debates how Democrats were terrible at marketing their plans vs the Republican's keep it simple titles The Patriot Act et al.
So in that regards, it's a good step forward.
Edit
Another thing is they are maneuvering the debate towards Democrats (jobs) Republicans (obstructionist politics). Quite frankly this should've been done a long time ago, but if the idea of spending will ever take hold (in the face of a possible recession), then this is part how the debate needs to be redefined. Control the definitions, control the debate.
|
|
|
On September 09 2011 00:28 Haemonculus wrote:
Soo... I figure instead of randomly debating current affairs, (which I'm happy to do as well btw), we could talk a bit about the big GOP nominee debate last night? Personally, I found it kind of disturbing.
Rick Perry claims that social security is a "ponzi scheme." Not the first time he's said this either. I hope he realizes that in order to win the election, he's going to need to win in Florida, which seems to be where all old people eventually migrate to. Not the best talking point imo.
Sickeningly, the line that got the most applause during the entire debate was when Perry proudly declared that his state Texas executes more people than any other state in the country. 234 people have been executed, (and one later found innocent) while Perry was governor, and the look on his face seemed disturbingly proud of it. The crowd loved the statistic. What is wrong with our country?
John Huntsman seemed incredibly reasonable during the entire debate. I think he's the only GOP candidate I could get behind, but sadly this means he's entirely unelectable for the nomination. He thinks about his answers, and provides rational basis for them. Sadly, I don't think the audience was rational, and he clearly bombed the debate with the viewers because of it.
Bachmann was as silly as ever, dodging questions regarding immigration.
"So after we build this fence, (referring to her ideas of building a fence along the entirety of the US/Mexico boarder), what will we do with the 10 million people who have already crossed?"
"Yes, we definitely need to build that fence."
"Alright, but after we build the fence, what do we do with those 10 million people?"
"The 50's and 60's were pretty great."
o.O What?
I also didn't understand Perry's analogy of Galileo and global warming. "Plenty of people questioned Galileo's ideas, just as we are still skeptical of climate change." I didn't quite get that, as it seems he's supporting quite the opposite.
So, what did anyone else think of the debates last night?
Didn't watch the whole thing but here's some thoughts. (Good post btw).
- Perry on Ponzi Scheme - We'll have to see how this plays out. It does appeal to the Tea Party and it may appeal to the elderly who are affraid that social security will go bankrupt. Depends how it's used - does he want to reform it or axe it? Plus he does have a point in that soc. sec. does resemble a Ponzi Scheme in many ways.
- Not for the death penalty myself but I wouldn't go so far as to call people "sick" for being for it.
- Huntsman - agreed he was great! I like the "pledge to not pledge" quote. I don't understand why it's considered good practice for leaders to box themselves into a corner these days. Also like his plea for the party to not become 'anti science'
- I lol'ed at the Bachman fence question! What a sad dodge.
- I think Perry was trying to say that the scientific orthodoxy can be wrong... but, and I'm not an expert here, I thought Galileo was opposed by the church more so than the scientific community...
Personally I liked Huntsman, Romney and Paul.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 00:28 Haemonculus wrote:
Soo... I figure instead of randomly debating current affairs, (which I'm happy to do as well btw), we could talk a bit about the big GOP nominee debate last night? Personally, I found it kind of disturbing.
Rick Perry claims that social security is a "ponzi scheme." Not the first time he's said this either. I hope he realizes that in order to win the election, he's going to need to win in Florida, which seems to be where all old people eventually migrate to. Not the best talking point imo.
Sickeningly, the line that got the most applause during the entire debate was when Perry proudly declared that his state Texas executes more people than any other state in the country. 234 people have been executed, (and one later found innocent) while Perry was governor, and the look on his face seemed disturbingly proud of it. The crowd loved the statistic. What is wrong with our country?
John Huntsman seemed incredibly reasonable during the entire debate. I think he's the only GOP candidate I could get behind, but sadly this means he's entirely unelectable for the nomination. He thinks about his answers, and provides rational basis for them. Sadly, I don't think the audience was rational, and he clearly bombed the debate with the viewers because of it.
Bachmann was as silly as ever, dodging questions regarding immigration.
"So after we build this fence, (referring to her ideas of building a fence along the entirety of the US/Mexico boarder), what will we do with the 10 million people who have already crossed?"
"Yes, we definitely need to build that fence."
"Alright, but after we build the fence, what do we do with those 10 million people?"
"The 50's and 60's were pretty great."
o.O What?
I also didn't understand Perry's analogy of Galileo and global warming. "Plenty of people questioned Galileo's ideas, just as we are still skeptical of climate change." I didn't quite get that, as it seems he's supporting quite the opposite.
So, what did anyone else think of the debates last night? Didn't watch the whole thing but here's some thoughts. (Good post btw). - Perry on Ponzi Scheme - We'll have to see how this plays out. It does appeal to the Tea Party and it may appeal to the elderly who are affraid that social security will go bankrupt. Depends how it's used - does he want to reform it or axe it? Plus he does have a point in that soc. sec. does resemble a Ponzi Scheme in many ways. - Not for the death penalty myself but I wouldn't go so far as to call people "sick" for being for it. - Huntsman - agreed he was great! I like the "pledge to not pledge" quote. I don't understand why it's considered good practice for leaders to box themselves into a corner these days. Also like his plea for the party to not become 'anti science' - I lol'ed at the Bachman fence question! What a sad dodge. - I think Perry was trying to say that the scientific orthodoxy can be wrong... but, and I'm not an expert here, I thought Galileo was opposed by the church more so than the scientific community... Personally I liked Huntsman, Romney and Paul.
You are correct by Galileo. Perry made a fool of himself with that statement. I'd also like to, for once, see a Republican leader who isn't anti-science have a shot at the presidency. Science is pretty much the single most important thing for all of humanity, and yet we have arseholes trying to stop it and shut it down. I like Huntsman, but the others really annoy me.
Also, nobody was calling the people sick for supporting the death penalty. They were calling people sick for cheering and applauding when Perry mentioned killing the most people with the death penalty, as if killing people is something to be happy about. Satisfied that it got done when it needed doing maybe, but happy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
